chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court
He then zealously sent at about 2.58am, an e-mail to 54 persons, all of whom were friends and/or business associates. 70 The third plaintiff proceeded to place orders on behalf of the sixth plaintiff on the HP website. Has an agreement been reached or not? 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. The initial order for 30 laser printers was placed at round 3.45am while the second order for 300 units was placed at around 3.53am. I categorically reject their evidence in so far as it attempts to hermetically compartmentalise their knowledge and discussions. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. It is unequivocally unethical conduct tantamount to sharp practice. 1.47K subscribers Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] Facts The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from. 27 The first plaintiff obviously took the view that the advertisement should be acted upon urgently. The e-mail was given a high importance priority and captioned go load it now!!. 6 On Wednesday, 8January 2003 between 3.00pm and 4.00pm, DILs employees conducted a training session at the defendants premises. The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. A particular class of case which illustrates unilateral mistake as to the terms intended, known to the other party, is that in which an offer which would be very advantageous to the offeree is snapped up by the offeree. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. In addition, Tan Cheng Peng, the girlfriend and business associate of the third plaintiff, filed an affidavit detailing her communications with him. At 4.16am he placed another order for one laser printer, by credit card, on the HP website. 101 The applicable rules in relation to transactions over the worldwide web appear to be clearer and less controversial. He received this information through an sms message. This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. u think this is the 1970s?? Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. This contention is wholly untenable. This is an inane argument. 80 Upon the conclusion of submissions, I directed counsel to appear before me. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website. 46 He was therefore aware, even before he made his first purchase, that the actual price of the laser printer was in the region of US$2,000. It is germane to observe that none of the cases purporting to follow Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 have with any degree of clarity defined the parameters of equitable mistake in contradistinction to a common law mistake. He tried to convey the impression that it never struck him that a mistake in the price posting of the laser printer could have occurred. The amounts ordered and the hurried and hasty manner in which the orders were executed are of cardinal importance. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. Thus, while the idea of snapping up may well apply in cases one side is aware of the other sides error, I do not think it can be applied literally in the constructive knowledge cases. Document Citado por Relacionados. Has an agreement been reached or not? In fact, he and the fourth plaintiff have jointly conceptualised and implemented an Internet-related business. Certain Internet service providers provide the technology to inform a sender that a message has not been properly routed. However, if the defendant did not have stock, it would immediately call the supplier and procure the products for the end-user. I do not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. 41 The second plaintiff seems to have redefined the facts to achieve his objective in these proceedings. When giving evidence, he struck me as cautious, taking great pains to convey the impression that his numerous online enquiries that morning were routinely carried out without any real inkling that an error had occurred. CHWEE KIN KEONG and Others v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2004) 2 SLR 594. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:24 huh?? We are only concerned with the question whether relief might be given for common mistake in circumstances wider than those stipulated in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161. There is often, but not inexorably, a co-relationship between the timing when the amendment is sought and the adverse consequences for the other party. He claimed that when he could not find the identical model on the US HP website he had assumed initially that the laser printer might be obsolete and was therefore being off-loaded cheaply at $66. Furthermore, they relied on a passage from Singapore Civil Procedure 2003 (Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2003) at para20/8/47 that asserts: At the trial leave to amend particulars will as a rule be refused (Moss v Malings (1886) 83ChD 603). Users may find that it may not be as forgiving as more traditional methods of communications. They are not entitled to the costs of the subsequent brief hearing, for reasons I now deal with summarily. The court has to be astute and adopt a pragmatic and judicious stance in resolving such issues. This final mass e-mail only reinforces my view that the first plaintiff consistently and continuously entertained the view that the price posting on the HP website was a mistake. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. As a matter of fairness, allowing amendments at a late stage should usually go hand in hand with granting leave to the other party to adduce further evidence, if necessary. He sought to amend his affidavit and testified that if the references in his affidavit implied the acknowledgement of a mistake, they were formulated not by him but by his previous solicitors and were incorrect. 28 In any event, the first plaintiffs commercial background and business experience alone would have amply alerted him to the likelihood of the pricing being a mistake, even without his conversation with Desmond. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. Thus, 119 It is apparent from this overview that the Canadian courts have integrated through their equitable jurisdiction the concept of common law mistake within the rubric of unconscionability. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. In Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du NordSA [1989] 1 WLR 255 at 266, Lord DenningMRs views were doubted and described as reflecting an individual opinion by SteynJ (as he then was). He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. How come got such thing? Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile Solle v Butcher with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. Their 12 The plaintiffs both collectively and individually maintained adamantly that while they thought that the price of $66 appeared to be a good deal they did not think that the website prices had been mistakenly placed or inserted. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. Lord Phillips of Worth MatraversMR observed in a withering analysis at [156], [157], [160] and [161]: Thus the premise of the equitys intrusion into the effects of the common law is that the common law rule in question is seen in the particular case to work injustice, and for some reason the common law cannot cure itself. In the High Court, the learned judge ("the Judge") decided, in the main, in favour of the Purchaser. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website.. Cases Suggested Citation: Seng, Daniel Kiat Boon, Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd: A Commentary (June 2020). In a physical sale, the merchant can immediately turn down an offer to purchase a product that has been advertised; otherwise he may be inundated with offers he cannot justify. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. Articles 11 (1) Country Singapore. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2 Civil Procedure - Costs - Principles - Respondent failing in every aspect of defence except on issue of unilateral mistake - Trial judge awarding full costs to respondent - Whether respondent entitled to full costs Indeed he had conduct of significant phases of these proceedings on behalf of the plaintiffs. This can be before or during the trial, or after judgment or on appeal. 57 Malcolm Tan is 30 years old and a practising advocate and solicitor. I agree that this exception should be kept within a very narrow compass. 36 The second plaintiff was the key person and pivotal in the entire chain of events. Clout issue 43. Chwee Kin Keong decision - Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; - Studocu Caso chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd slr sghc 71 suit no: suit decision 12 apr 2004 date: court: coram: counsel: high court rajah jc tan sok IgnorarExperimenta 'Pergunta a um Especialista' Pergunta a um especialista Prior to this he was an associate in the Intellectual Property and Technology Department of Allen & Gledhill. In any event, it does not appear that she disclosed the whole truth of what she knew. The fifth plaintiff was also a member of this bridge group. China-Singapore "One Belt One Road" International Business Cases Digest Part 1 -"" () 457-463 (2020, published by the Singapore and People's Republic of China Supreme Courts . There was no element of surprise or prejudice to the plaintiffs as the points raised had already been developed by the defendant and addressed by the plaintiffs. Borneo United Sawmills Sdn Bhd v. MUI Continental Insurance Bhd (Marine insurance - Loss of goods - Claim for loss of goods under Marine Cargo Policy) [2009] 8 CLJ 217. His evidence pertaining to the material points of knowledge and his communications with the other plaintiffs lacked credibility. Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. These orders were placed at a price of S$66 each, whereas the actual price was S$3,854 each. He is currently a supervisor in the taxation department of an international accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche, specialising in corporate taxation services. [The Myth of Mistake in the English Law of Contract (1954) 70LQR 385 at 396]. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. Phang, Controversy in Common Mistake [2003] Conv 247; Reynolds, Reconsider the Contract Textbooks (2003) 119LQR 177. This is to be contrasted with: Hare, Inequitable Mistake (2003) 62CLJ 29, Chandler et al, Common Mistake: Theoretical Justification and Remedial Inflexibility [2004] JBL 34. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR (R) 594 (" Digilandmall.com "), the plaintiffs concerned placed orders over the Internet for a total of 1,606 Hewlett Packard commercial laser printers on the defendant (seller's) websites. There is one important exception to this principle. MrTan said: As long as we get out [sic] equitable compensation, we should be able to accept lesser terms, but thats just under consideration as well.. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. Lord Griffiths in Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 189 at 220 stated: [T]o allow an amendment before a trial begins is quite different from allowing it at the end of the trial to give an apparently unsuccessful defendant an opportunity to renew the fight on an entirely different defence. In addition, each of the confirmatory e-mail responses states at the outset: [W]e will be calling you in the near future to deliver the products to the address shown below. 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. Altogether, the second plaintiff purchased 180 units, opting for cash on delivery as the payment mode. It appears that he was also in touch with the fifth plaintiff as evidenced by an e-mail sent later that morning by the fifth plaintiff to both him and the second plaintiff containing research on what companies who had made similar Internet errors did. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings.