124 A number of decisions over the last five decades emanating from several common law jurisdictions even go so far as to suggest that with the integration of the courts of common law and equity, equitable principles now hold sway and that earlier common law decisions need reinterpretation. The very foundations of predictability, certainty and efficacy, underpinning contractual dealings, will be undermined if the law and/or equity expands the scope of the mistake exception with alacrity or uncertainty. 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. 22 The exchange between the first plaintiff and Desmond provides an intimate and revealing insight into the first plaintiffs thought process at the material time; the exchange fluctuated between bantering on the one hand, to nothing short of the candid exchange of thoughts on the other, revealing that the first plaintiff was fully aware of the likely existence of an error in pricing. Rules and case law pertaining to amendments are premised upon achieving even-handedness in the context of an adversarial system by: (a) ensuring that the parties apprise each other and the court of the essential facts that they intend to rely on in addressing the issues in controversy or dispute; (b) requiring that an amendment should be attended to in the usual course of events, at an early stage of the proceedings, to ensure that no surprise or prejudice is inflicted on or caused to opposing parties; (c) requiring careful consideration whether any amendments sought at a late stage of the proceedings will cause any prejudice to the opposing party. "Unilateral Mistake in Law and Equity: Solle v Butcher Reinstated" by 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 are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. The preface I do not know in no way detracts from this; the e-mail being addressed to a large group of 54 persons, the first plaintiff would simply not have wanted to commit himself by saying I know. This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. 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. 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. 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. Hence the first plaintiffs cryptically worded but highly significant mass e-mail where he adverted to the fact that he did not know if the defendant would honour the contracts but in any event wished all the recipients good luck. 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. This can be before or during the trial, or after judgment or on appeal. 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. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. It takes the view that there is no jurisdiction in equity to rescind a contract that is valid at common law, on the basis of mistake. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. I am not prepared, after full consideration, to assume that the reporters misquoted the facts. 52 He then called the second plaintiff on his handphone and informed him that he intended to purchase 50 laser printers. 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. The law of agency and that pertaining to the formation of contracts are expressly recognised in s13(8) of the ETA as continuing to apply to electronic transactions. be rebutted" (per Salmon LJ in Jones v. Padavatton (1969)). 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. Document Citado por Relacionados. He has common business interests with the first, third and fourth plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. In the light of that consideration we can see no way that Solle v Butcher can stand with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. He has incorporated an Internet business Dreamcupid in which the second plaintiff has an interest. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. 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.)]. [emphasis added]. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. It seems to me that he was trying to tailor his evidence to fit neatly within the legal parameters of the plaintiffs case. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. The modern approach in contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. This has clearly caused much confusion in the common law jurisdictions. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. I was neither impressed nor convinced. Case name. His communications with the fifth plaintiff, a lawyer, on the efficacy of the terms and conditions also lead to the ineluctable conclusion that he harboured anxieties whether this astoundingly good deal would be honoured when the error was discovered. Computer glitches can cause transmission failures, garbled information or even change the nature of the information transmitted. Case Update: B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC(I) 3; Quoine v B2C2 The jurisdiction asserted in the former case has not developed. 121 While my views here are not central to my decision, the plaintiffs have adverted to this relationship in a misguided attempt to derail the defence on an arid pleading technicality. Doctrines and Institutions of Responsible Government. 148 The circumstances under which the orders were placed and the quantities sought to be purchased wholly undermine counsels variegated contentions that the plaintiffs lacked knowledge of or belief in the existence of a mistake. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. Caveat emptor remains a cornerstone of the law of contract and business relationships. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. 66 The fifth plaintiff also gave evidence that the next morning, when he logged on his computer, he noted that a Hong Kong lawyer friend, Coral Toh, was also logged onto her computer. This thread helps to rationalise the development of the common law but ought not to be viewed as supporting the existence of a general test of commercial morality tantamount to the test of unconscionability invoked by equity. Given his professional and business background, he must have realised that the $66 price posting on the HP website was an error. Claiming he was in a light-hearted kind of mood during his ICQ (acronym for I-Seek-You) conversation with Desmond, he insisted that this conversation should be taken neither seriously nor literally. 63 It is pertinent he too made web searches using the Google search engine. The decision of V.K. Once again, however, this does not deprive E of his legal remedies; nor does it avail V if he wishes to recover property which he may have transferred under the contract. 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. 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. 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. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 yeah man whats the original price? Both parties displayed a considerable amount of imagination in dealing with them. 75 Each of the automated confirmatory e-mail responses carried under Availability of product the notation call to enquire. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:42 I want at least one for personal use 2 would be good coz my gf needs one too any more than that would be a bonus ;-), Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 anyway, I dont mind buying over if you have frens who want to sell buy at twice the price!! The plaintiffs were not being candid when they portrayed very limited exchanges between themselves, dealing allegedly with only the profits to be made and their ability to resell the laser printers. 145 If the price of a product is so absurdly low in relation to its known market value, it stands to reason that a reasonable man would harbour a real suspicion that the price may not be correct or that there may be some troubling underlying basis for such a pricing. 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 third plaintiff informed him that laser printers were being sold at $66 each and that these laser printers could be sold at a much higher price about a thousand plus. There must be consensus ad idem. It can be persuasively argued that e-mails involving transactions embraced by the Convention are only effective on reaching the recipient. 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. In the final stage of the process, after the payment mode was indicated, each of the plaintiffs was notified successful transaction your order and payment transaction has been processed. 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. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com - Free download as Powerpoint Presentation (.ppt / .pptx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or view presentation slides online. 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. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The elements of an offer and acceptance are ex facie satisfied in every transaction asserted in the plaintiffs claims. 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. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 78 In a Channel NewsAsia report datelined 15January 2003, it was reported that: Two of the customers, Mark Yeow and Malcolm Tan, have already spoken to their lawyers. The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. The second issue was raised by me and touched upon contentions made by both parties in their written submissions. Despite the general views expressed in. They are described by their counsel in submissions as risk takers, business minded and profit seeking. Why? The first plaintiffs purchase took place soon after the ICQ conversation with Desmond where Desmond had in no uncertain terms pitched the price of the laser printer between $3,000 to $4,000. His Internet research alone would have confirmed that. While it is possible that the reporters could have exercised some latitude in penning the reports, they would in essence be conveying, at the very least, summaries and impressions of their interviews with the second, third and fifth plaintiffs. 152 This view has also found support in the Singapore context. The complainants had ordered over 100 printers each at this price. COURT. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. 42 Mark Yeow Kinn Keong has a Bachelor of Science (Economics) degree from the University of London. Lord Griffiths in, 87 It appeared to me that the extract from, 88 The fact that the amending party has been tardy or even negligent is a factor that a court can (and in some egregious cases, should) take into account but this is by no means a decisive factor (, 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. The bites, however, may taste quite different and cause different sensations. 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. Law, Fairness and Economics - Unilateral Mistake in Digilandmall Before retiring for the night, the first plaintiff had a further discussion with the second plaintiff on how to store the laser printers they had ordered. He received this information through an sms message. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. Following closely to the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 as a precedent with similar context, the court would most likely try to determine if there is an existence of a contract or if an agreement has been reached in the first place, so we refer to Lord Phillips in Shogun Finance Ltd v 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.