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. The sixth plaintiff told his brother to order some for him, without specifying how many laser printers he wanted or how he intended to pay for the laser printers. The mere fact that they suddenly engage in predatory and atypical behaviour may in itself be telling. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. 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. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2 Civil Procedure Costs , Civil Procedure Pleadings , Contract Mistake Decision Date: 13 Jan 2005 . 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. 123 One view maintains that the mistaken party can either attempt to have the contract declared void at common law if the mistake is fundamental or radical, or alternatively seek a remedy in equity, which could include rescission. From time to time they communicate with each other, 4 The defendant is a company that sells information technology (IT) related products over the Internet to consumers. I would not however invariably equate the required conduct with fraud. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. I agree that this exception should be kept within a very narrow compass. The first and fifth appellants each ordered a hundred printers, while the other appellants ordered more than a hundred printers each. In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. He was amicus curiae to the Court of Appeal of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, the leading Singapore case on unilateral mistake in the digital environment. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. The credit card payments had not been processed. The decision of V.K. High Court and Court of Appeal, recently, in a number of case . While the first plaintiff was the source of the information concerning the price posting, the second plaintiff actively communicated with all of the plaintiffs (save the sixth plaintiff), throughout the material period. While commercial entities ought not to be given a licence to relax their vigilance, the policy considerations in refusing to enforce mistaken agreements militate against attaching undue weight to the carelessness involved in spawning the mistake. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. 122 For now it appears that a mistaken party can have two bites at the cherry. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades, 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. They proceeded to file their amendments to the statement of claim as if leave had already been given. 1 In the early hours of the morning of 13January 2003, six friends, the plaintiffs in this case, placed orders over the Internet for 1,606 sophisticated Hewlett Packard commercial laser printers (the laser printer(s)). 26 It is clear from the priority status accorded to the e-mail that the first plaintiff was sharing his knowledge of a good deal. 103 The amalgam of factors a court will have to consider in risk allocation ought to include: (a) the need to observe the principle of upholding rather than destroying contracts, (b) the need to facilitate the transacting of electronic commerce, and. 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 Inflexible and mechanical rules lead to injustice. It became apparent that the plaintiffs misplaced reliance on the extract earlier cited probably also explained their singularly odd conduct in applying for amendments, only to withdraw their application later in attempting to deny the defendant an opportunity to amend its pleadings. His counsel contends that the idea the price was a mistake never arose in the second plaintiffs mind; he was preoccupied with thinking about the profit potential of the laser printers. He said that he wanted to be sure that the offer on the HP website was genuine. In Chwee Kin Keong v . 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. The other knows, or must be taken to know, of his mistake. 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. This is an area that needs to be rationalised in a coherent and structured manner. This pricing was a mistake, which was fundamental to the contract and the complainants must have known that this absurdly low pricing was an error by the defendants. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. Their The prospective buyer has to make an offer to purchase which is then accepted by the merchant. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. I do not accept that there were no discussions between them on the price posting being an error. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. The complainants argued that they were not aware that this price was a mistake and wanted the binding contract to be fulfilled. 56 He vacillated throughout his evidence between a propensity to embellish his evidence on the one hand and to hold back on the other. From time to time they communicate with each other via the Internet and the short messaging system (sms). Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR(R) 594, Rajah JC (as . As for the common law on unilateral mistake, it is claimed that the acid test for its application is not satisfied. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. 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 cannot be right. I note that there have been powerful arguments made to the contrary. He then carried out some checks on the Yahoo search engine to ascertain whether the printer model existed and whether the laser printer could be sold at more than $66. Rules of court which are meant to facilitate the conduct of proceedings invariably encapsulate concepts of procedural fairplay. . The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. 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. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. A court is not likely to take a sympathetic view of such manner of amendment. 130 It can be persuasively argued that given (a)the historical pedigree of the cases, (b)the dictates of certainty and predictability in the business community and (c)the general acceptance of the existence of distinct common law rules, it is preferable not to conflate these concepts. 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 paginator.book page 594 tuesday, november 2009 7:05 am 594 singapore law reports (reissue . At 4.16am he placed another order for one laser printer, by credit card, on the HP website. Sometimes this is made explicit by judges; more often it is the implied basis of the courts decision. The first and fifth plaintiffs ordered exactly a hundred laser printers each. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. In summary therefore, the equitable jurisdiction of the Courts to relieve against mistake in contract comprehends situations where one party, who knows or ought to know of anothers mistake in a fundamental term, remains silent and snaps at the offer, seeking to take advantage of the others mistake. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. If the defendant were right, they maintain, uncertainty would prevail in the commercial world and more particularly in Internet transactions. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. 86 In cases where the facts raised in the proposed amendments have been addressed during the evidence and submissions and, particularly, where the opposing side has also had an opportunity to address the very same points, there can hardly ever be any real prejudice. This has clearly caused much confusion in the common law jurisdictions. The current general approach is correctly stated in Professor Jeffrey Pinslers Singapore Court Practice 2003 (LexisNexis, 2003) at para20/5/7: An amendment may be allowed even after both parties have made their closing submissions. The law ought to take a practical approach in dealing with such cases if it appears that by exercising reasonable care the true facts ought to be known. 133 It is however clear that the law should not take cognisance of bad bargains and misapprehension that do not affect a fundamental or essential aspect of a contractual relationship. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. 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. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. V K Rajah JC. If this rule applies to international sales, is it sensible to have a different rule for domestic sales? 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:43 coz the HP laser colour printer sells for at least 3 to 4k outside, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 from US I heard is about USD 2k, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 its HP and Laser and Coloured. 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. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. Court Judgement 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 Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Discovery Institutions London School of Business and Finance SAA Global Education The knowledge that the offer is not meant according to its literal terms simply displaces the objective theory of contract. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. 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. Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile Solle v Butcher with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. Counsels approach is flawed. This is without basis. 138 Effectively, the defendant was attempting in this contention to assert that it could have its cake and eat it as well. The first issue dealt with references made by the plaintiffs to certain embargoed material. There can be no other reasonable explanation. CHWEE KIN KEONG and Others v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2004) 2 SLR 594. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. [1955] 2 Q.B. Desmond further informed the first plaintiff that the sale price of each laser printer was in the region of $3,000 to $4,000. After placing his second order, he admitted making further searches on the Internet to fortify my view that the price of the $66 per printer was not a mistake He was also the only plaintiff who placed an order on the Digilandmall website. His girlfriend, Tan Cheng Peng, is also a director and shareholder of the company in which he has a stakeholding with the first and second plaintiffs. Soon after, the second, third and fifth plaintiffs took their claims to the media. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com I accept that this is capable of including circumstances in which a person refrains from or simply fails to make enquiries for which the situation reasonably calls and which would have led to discovery of the mistake. Unfortunately, they mistakenly offered the price at so much per pound in place of so much per piece. Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004 . On any objective construction, the presumed intention must be that in the context of its confirmatory content, the words call to enquire in the availability portion of the contract related to the timing of the delivery rather than being subject to physical availability of the laser printer or stock. There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. How could one seek to calculate the profit margin before finding out the true market price of the laser printer? Given his professional and business background, he must have realised that the $66 price posting on the HP website was an error. 33 See the Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd[2005] 1 SLR 502 (noted by Yeo, TM ' Great Peace: a distant disturbance ' (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 393 Google Scholar; KFK Low 'Unilateral mistake at common law and in equity' [2005] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 423; and PW . Different protocols may result in messages arriving in an incomprehensible form. Yet in other aspects, he could recollect, with crystal clear precision and clarity, details of what had transpired. She opined that situations where unilateral mistake had been considered were those involving fraud or a very high degree of misconduct.