It is postulated by many of the leading treatises that equity has a broad church incorporating a more elastic approach and a court of equity may rescind a contract, award damages or, in limited circumstances, fashion a remedy, to suit the justice of the matter. There is however much to be said in favour of rationalising the law of mistake under a single doctrine incorporating the best elements of common law and equity. Web merchants ought to ensure that they either contract out of the receipt rule or expressly insert salient terms within the contract to deal with issues such as a choice of law, jurisdiction and other essential terms relating to the passing of risk and payment. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Case Nos: Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) in the High Court of Singapore (at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal. Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 wasnt greedy before I tok to u. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 yeah.. S$1 mio then no need to work liao?? The court found that parties when . He has incorporated an Internet business Dreamcupid in which the second plaintiff has an interest. In New Zealand, the legislature enacted the Contractual Mistake Act 1977. It should be noted that while the common law jurisdictions continue to wrestle over this vexed issue, most civil law jurisdictions lean towards the recipient rule. He confirmed through these searches that the usual price of the laser printers was in the region of US$2,000. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. He in effect forwarded the first plaintiffs e-mail to them. , In unilateral mistake, only one of the parties is mistaken. Their conduct in pursuing their claims cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterised as having the slightest colour of being legitimate regardless of whether the subjective or objective theories are applied and whether common law or equity is applied in adjudicating this matter. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. The present article analyses the many important issues that are raised by what is probably the first case on Internet mistake - the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594. However, if the defendant did not have stock, it would immediately call the supplier and procure the products for the end-user. . This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. Needless to say, he could not satisfactorily explain why his previous solicitors had formed such a view when preparing his affidavit and why he had affirmed the same. His revelation that he did not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase, not to mention the articulation of his hope that by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00 coz they might change it anytime, are all compelling in reflecting his state of mind and awareness that an error had occurred. The purpose of the amendments was merely to regularise the pleadings and indeed they went no further than to summarise evidence and submissions that had already been raised. Being fully conscious of the pivotal nature of this point, I have duly accorded particular attention to the evidence and credibility of each of the plaintiffs. Other Jurisdictions. They stoutly assert that they were too preoccupied with the realisation of potential profits through a so-called arbitrage position between different markets to contemplate that an error had been made. This is approved in a Singaporean case, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd . Computer glitches can cause transmission failures, garbled information or even change the nature of the information transmitted. The fifth plaintiff was also a member of this bridge group. The other knows, or must be taken to know, of his mistake. Different protocols may result in messages arriving in an incomprehensible form. 153 These statements of jurisprudence are of cardinal importance in understanding and fashioning the law of contract. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. One reason for this is the eternal tension faced by courts and judges alike in seeking a just equilibrium between commercial certainty and justice in a particular case. I hope by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00 coz they might change it anytime. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:24 just ordered 3 colour lazer printer for S$66.00 each. I note that Chitty at para5-089, fn25 sagely opines that Taylor v Johnson does not represent English law, at least, where the other party knows that a mistake has been made. Despite the general views expressed in Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151CLR 422 on equitable mistake, it seems to be generally accepted in Australia as well, that this class of cases requires special mention and consideration. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . 74 Under product description on each webpage, instead of the actual description of the laser printer which in this case should have been HP9660A Color LaserJet 4600, only the numerals 55 appeared: this was the result of Samuel Teos earlier inadvertent input. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. Doctrines and Institutions of Responsible Government. The High Court of Australia in Taylor v Johnson purportedly relied on Solle v Butcher, Bell v Lever Brothers, Limited [1932] AC 161, McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84CLR 377, all cases of common mistake, to suggest that in unilateral mistake a contracting party cannot assert, by relying on his own mistake, that a contract is void, notwithstanding the issue is fundamental or known to the other side. There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. When considering the appropriate rule to apply, it stands to reason that as between sender and receiver, the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events. Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. 102 Inevitably mistakes will occur in the course of electronic transmissions. See now, also, That is sufficient in these circumstances. He opted to pay for all his purchases by cash on delivery. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. Normally, however, the task involves no more than an objective analysis of the words used by the parties. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. The second plaintiff made an enquiry as to the terms and conditions governing purchases through the HP website while the fifth plaintiff was perusing the conditions of the Digilandmall website. It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. It has been pithily said that the rules of procedure should be viewed as a handmaiden and not a mistress, to be slavishly followed. 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. Most telling of all, I note that the first to fifth plaintiffs exhibited identical reports in each of their affidavits without any qualification whatsoever. One is hard put to imagine that anyone would purchase such an item, let alone place very substantial orders, without making some very basic enquiries as to pricing. 152 This view has also found support in the Singapore context. 45 The most telling aspect of the third plaintiffs evidence is his admission that he made Internet searches relating to the pricing of the laser printer, immediately after he was contacted by the first plaintiff. No cash had been collected. When pressed as to whether he visited other websites, he said he could not confirm that one way or the other. 106 In the Singapore context, the first port of call when confronted with issues of contract law is inevitably Professor Andrew Phangs treatise on Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmstons Law of Contract (2nd Singapore and Malaysian Ed, 1998). He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79], 77 Soon after the defendant informed the plaintiffs that they did not intend to deliver the laser printers, the plaintiffs took their claims to the press. Though the six plaintiffs accounted for only 18 of these purchase orders, they figure prominently among the 11 individuals who ordered more than 50 laser printers. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. There is no merit at all in this contention. Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see. 2 [2004] 2 SLR 594 ("the Digilandmall case") (The decision was very recently affirmed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2, albeit on somewhat different grounds and where the focus was on the law of unilateral mistake rather than formation of contract.)]. reference was made by the court to "fraud or a very high degree of misconduct" before the non- mistaken party could be . While this case needs to be treated with some caution, as it appears to integrate concepts of law and equity, I respectfully agree with the approach in so far as it deals with deemed knowledge. If coherence is to be restored to this area of our law, it can only be by declaring that there is no jurisdiction to grant rescission of a contract on the ground of common mistake where that contract is valid and enforceable on ordinary principles of contract law. In light of these general observations, I now address the law on unilateral mistake. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. After all, what would he do with 100 obsolete commercial laser printers? In evidence he explained his conduct in the following manner: I felt that I had done all that was conceivably within my means to ensure that the Price was not a mistake. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. While a court of law does not sit as a court of commercial morality, it cannot lose sight of this central objective of contract law. 114 For good measure, I should allude that the plaintiffs in their written submissions concede that in order to establish that mistake is operative at common law, the defendant has to show in this instant case that the plaintiffs each had actual or constructive knowledge of the mistaken pricing. Rules of court which are meant to facilitate the conduct of proceedings invariably encapsulate concepts of procedural fairplay. To my mind, the confirmation through the subsequent searches that the actual price of the laser printer was, in fact, US$2,000 would, if anything, have affirmed his belief that an error had occurred. The product descriptions in all the other pages of the respective websites, at the material time, carried a full detailed description of all advertised products. 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in Gallie v Lee [1969] 2 Ch 17 at 33 (affirmed on appeal in Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004) that in Cundy v Lindsay there was no contract at all. In the context of its true market value the absurd price of $66 was almost the commercial equivalent of virtually giving away the laser printers. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract, 26 I respectfully agree with the reasoning of ShawJ in. Notwithstanding occasional failure, most e-mails arrive sooner rather than later. Neither party raised any objections. 61 The fifth plaintiff placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 3.51am. 105 It is not only reasonable but right that the objective appearance of a contract should not operate in favour of a party who is aware, in the eyes of the law, of the true state of affairs when, for instance, there is real misapprehension on the part of the mistaken party and when the actual reality of the situation is starkly obvious. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. There were altogether 1,008 purchase orders for the laser printers placed by 784 individuals between 8 and 13January 2003. Prejudice is to be viewed broadly to encompass any injustice and embraces both procedural and substantive notions; (d) recognising that while a costs award against the party seeking late amendments can frequently alleviate any inconvenience caused, this may not always be appropriate; (e) taking into account policy considerations that require finality in proceedings and proper time management of the courts resources and scheduling.