108 Chitty on Contracts (28th Ed, 1999) vol1 observes at para5-035: It is not clear whether for the mistake to be operative it must actually be known to the other party, or whether it is enough that it ought to have been apparent to any reasonable man. The essence of snapping up lies in taking advantage of a known or perceived error in circumstances which ineluctably suggest knowledge of the error. It may be impractical and unjust to demand that the mistaken party actually prove the knowledge of a substantial number of people who effect numerous purchases. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. 37 The second plaintiff was insistent in his evidence that there was no communication from the first plaintiff alerting him to the likely existence of the mistake; he contends the first plaintiff merely apprised him of a good deal and sent him the weblink to the HP website. We can understand why the decision in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd did not find favour with Lord DenningMR. An equitable jurisdiction to grant rescission on terms where a common fundamental mistake has induced a contract gives greater flexibility than a doctrine of common law which holds the contract void in such circumstances. 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. In accordance with s15(1) of the ETA, acceptance would be effective the moment the offer enters that node of the network outside the control of the originator. He opted to pay for all his purchases by cash on delivery. No harm trying right? 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. The web page entitled checkout order confirmation had a notation stating the earliest date on which we can deliver all the products to you is based on the longest estimated time of stock availability plus the delivery lead time. Ltd} has the makings of a student's classic for several rea sons: it presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance; it is set in the context He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. 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 . While this is the general principle for shop displays, it is open to a merchant to offer by way of an advertisement the mechanics of a unilateral or bilateral contract. A number of them have very close relationships, with some of them even sharing common business interests. 63 It is pertinent he too made web searches using the Google search engine. When, however, the cases provoked by these factual situations are analysed, they will be seen to fall, not into three, but only two distinct legal categories. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. Errors may incur wholly unexpected, and sometimes untoward, consequences as these proceedings so amply demonstrate. I was neither impressed nor convinced. She opined that situations where unilateral mistake had been considered were those involving fraud or a very high degree of misconduct. The goods are not on offer but are said to be an invitation to treat. be rebutted" (per Salmon LJ in Jones v. Padavatton (1969)). In the recent case of Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005), the Singapore Courts were provided with an opportunity to revisit the law concerning mistakes made in the formation of a contract, in particular, in the context of online contracts. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. The law may not imply a condition precedent as to the availability of stock simply to bail out an Internet merchant from a bad bargain, 104 The creases over the theoretical approach to adopt in determining the existence of contracts have for some time now been decisively ironed out in favour of the objective theory. Her evidence was inconsequential and did not assist the plaintiffs. In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd , 1 one of the defendant's employees mistakenly uploaded the contents of a training template onto the defendant's website, resulting in the retail price of S$3,854 for a commercial laser printer on the website being replaced with the figure S$66. 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. Websites often provide a service where online purchases may be made. Having noted all this, I am nevertheless inclined towards the views expressed in the, 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. He appears to have been in constant communication with the second plaintiff and to have received and read the mass e-mail from the first plaintiff after he placed his first purchase order. . 59 Upon duly accessing the HP website through the hyperlink sent to him by the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff ascertained that the laser printer was priced at $66. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Counsel however contends that even if this e-mail were to be read literally, this should not affect the first plaintiffs own purchase that had taken place an hour earlier. In the fifth plaintiffs affidavit evidence, he asserted emphatically and unequivocally that at no point did I ever think that the price of the printers were a mistake. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. 135 The defendant however asserts that there were no concluded contracts with any of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds. Prior to being self-employed, he was a corporate banker with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, for four years. six plaintiffs ordered 1,606 printers. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. The mere fact that they suddenly engage in predatory and atypical behaviour may in itself be telling. The element of constructive knowledge based upon what a reasonable person ought to know is premised upon that person not being conscious of the error. Therefore, administrative law encompasses Is the Right to Privacy Adequately Protected? After hearing their evidence, observing them and considering the submissions made on their behalf, there was no doubt in my mind that they were fully conscious that an unfortunate and egregious mistake had indeed been made by the defendant. It is asserted that since mistake had not been pleaded as an equitable defence, equity cannot be invoked by the defendant. The elements of an offer and acceptance are, 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. But there would have, at least, to be some real reason to suppose the existence of a mistake before it could be incumbent on one party to question whether another party meant what he or she said. This constituted more than a quarter of the total number of laser printers ordered. 155 The Internet has revolutionised commerce and radically altered the manner in which commercial interaction currently takes place. Examples of such mistakes would include (a)human error (b)programming of software errors and (c)transmission problems in the communication systems. . In turn, the ICQ chat session involving the first plaintiff and the respective plaintiffs exchange of e-mails played a significant role in undermining their credibility and claims. 10 News of the rather extraordinary laser printer pricing began to spread like wildfire within the local Internet community. He is 32 years old and conducts his own network marketing business. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. 143 The stark gaping difference between the price posting and the market price of the laser printer would have made it obvious to any objective person that something was seriously amiss. He commenced practice in 2000 and currently practices with the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this action. A party may not snap at an obviously mistaken offer: McMaster. 153 These statements of jurisprudence are of cardinal importance in understanding and fashioning the law of contract. Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see. The affidavits did not add anything new. 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. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract. The credit card payments had not been processed. The case of, The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff, 116 The term snapping up was aptly coined by JamesLJ in, 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. Samuel Teo had used all these notional numerals on the training template. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. 25 The mass e-mail at 2.58am is cursorily dismissed by counsel for the plaintiffs as poor use of language that ought not to be taken literally in light of the early hours of the morning. Their Caveat emptor remains a cornerstone of the law of contract and business relationships. Upon accessing the Digilandmall website and confirming that the printer was offered there at $66 as well, he placed a further order for 25 laser printers through that website at about 3.29am. I drew counsels attention to Halsburys Laws of Australia (Butterworths, 1992), vol6 at para 110-5550 which states: 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. As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. He appeared distinctly uncomfortable during several phases of his cross-examination and his answers on crucial points were evasive and often vague.. His evidence in relation to the level and nature of communications he had with the second and third plaintiffs on the morning in question lacked candour. When pressed as to whether he visited other websites, he said he could not confirm that one way or the other. His evidence pertaining to the material points of knowledge and his communications with the other plaintiffs lacked credibility. This, by an uncanny coincidence, was the same person whom he had intended to consult in the resale of the laser printers a topic that he had discussed with the second plaintiff earlier that morning. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. He claimed he wanted to find out how much profit he could make. (See for example the approach in, 142 The plaintiffs were bound by personal relationships as well as past and present common commercial interests. After referring to a series of leading cases, including the often quoted decision of ThomsonJ in McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971), 22DLR(3d) 9 (Ont HCJ), Chief Justice McLachlin said at p37: One circumstance falling clearly within the equitable jurisdiction of the Court to relieve against mistake is that where one party, knowing of the others mistake as to the terms of an offer, remains silent and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms: Solle, supra; Belle River Community Arena v WJC Kaufman Co (1978), 20OR(2d) 447, 4 BLR 231, 87DLR(3d) 761 (CA). The terms of the offer are clear and unambiguous and the offeree accepts the offer according to its true sense, but it must have been obvious (and known by the offeree) that the offeror did not intend to make an offer in those terms. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.
How Do I Find My Responding Fire Department,
What Is The Subject Matter Of Mona Lisa,
Craigslist Rooms For Rent Auburn, Wa,
Amaro Lucano Substitute,
Articles C