CLARK, B. 15 Early on the morning of 13January 2003 at about 1.17am, the first plaintiff received a message from a friend, Desmond Tan (Desmond), through an Internet chatlink. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. The rationale for this is that a court will not sanction a contract where there is no, 150 The plaintiffs have contended that this court ought to follow the decision in, A thread runs through our contract law that effect must be given to, 152 This view has also found support in the Singapore context. Comments Published in English: [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. This view seems to suggest that principles of equity invariably provide an equally strong but more elastic second string to the bow. 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 placed his first order for 50 units at about 2.58am, and his second order for another 50 units at 3.22am, again through the HP website. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other knew or ought reasonably to have known. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. It stands to reason that if a party shuts its eyes to the obvious, the party is being neither honest nor reasonable, and ought to be affixed with knowledge. Quite apart from this singularly precise timing, his exchange with Ms Toh is noteworthy for the following reason: when he told her about the various concluded purchases of the laser printers, she immediately thought it was a mistake and that HP would not honour the contracts. This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. Her evidence was inconsequential and did not assist the plaintiffs. The complainants had ordered over 100 printers each at this price. If this rule applies to international sales, is it sensible to have a different rule for domestic sales? Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd Case No.s Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) Name and level of courts High Court of Singapore(at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal Member of courts VK Rajah, JC (for the first instance), Chao Hick Tin JA, Kan Ting Chiu J, Yong Pung How CJ Chwee Kin Keong decision - Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall This cannot be right. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 2 Who is correct? 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. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. It is set in the context of internet contracting. 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). Judgments >> CA They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. PDF Emily M. Weitzenboeck, 2012 Norwegian Research Center for - UiO In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order particulars, checkout-order confirmation, check-out payment details and payment whether by cash on delivery or by credit card. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:24 huh?? It can however be observed that in mass mistake cases, even when there is no direct evidence as in these proceedings, the court could be prepared to pragmatically assume actual or deemed knowledge of the manifest mistake. After all, what would he do with 100 obsolete commercial laser printers? 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. Again he attempted to minimise the impact of these observations by saying his subsequent searches erased all such doubts. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. Unfortunately, they mistakenly offered the price at so much per pound in place of so much per piece. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. 115 There is a distinct line of cases within the narrow confines of unilateral mistake where the common law has been resolutely disinclined to enforce apparent contracts. 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. The other knows, or must be taken to know, of his mistake. The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. The Question about Validity of Postal Rule - lawteacher.net Failure to do so could also result in calamitous repercussions. 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. If anything, certain portions of the affidavits raised even more doubts about the plaintiffs credibility. 150 The plaintiffs have contended that this court ought to follow the decision in Taylor v Johnson and hold that the contract is not void under common law but voidable only in equity. The bites, however, may taste quite different and cause different sensations. Reference this Introduction The decision of V.K. The effect of Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is not to supplement or mitigate the common law: it is to say that Bell v Lever Bros Ltd was wrongly decided. They are tainted and unenforceable. http://www.epinions.com/HP_Color_LaserJet_4600_Series_Printer_Printers. 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: It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as, 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. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd - LawTeacher.net Has an agreement been reached or not? 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. Here are some examples of case citations for other jurisdictions. Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile Solle v Butcher with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. 136 First, it was suggested that no contracts had been formed as all the contracts were subject to availability and that a failure to adhere to the directive call to enquire prevented the contracts from coming into existence. CISG-online is a research platform dedicated to the law and practice of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods adopted in Vienna on 11 April 1980 (CISG), as well as related areas of international commercial law. (2d) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall [2004 ] SGHC 71 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. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. There can be no other reasonable explanation. It can be persuasively argued that e-mails involving transactions embraced by the Convention are only effective on reaching the recipient. The fifth plaintiff was also a member of this bridge group. [2005] 1 SLR (R) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd 507 printers. 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. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 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 and Others v Pte Ltd PDF fileChwee Kin The text of the e-mail further reinforces the point. 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. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. 113 The English Court of Appeal in Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd [1995] Ch 259, a case of common mistake, imported the concept of Nelsonian knowledge and applied the framework of various categories of knowledge outlined by Peter GibsonJ in Baden v Societe Generale pour Favoriser le Developpement du Commerce et de lIndustrie en FranceSA [1993] 1 WLR 509. The point is, there is a chasm between a clarification amendment and a new or distinct issue being raised at a later stage. 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).
Saint Michael School Calendar, Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle Strengths And Weaknesses, David Parker Ray 18 Point List, Articles C