That is sufficient in these circumstances. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. He admitted in cross-examination to being the lawyer for this group of people when they had questions like these in the present proceedings. by the earlier decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502, where the Court of Appeal recognised the doctrine of unilateral mistake in equity, departing from the English position in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679; [2002] 3 WLR 1617; [2002] 4 All ER 689. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. 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. 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 (cf Ketteman v Hansel Properties). Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. 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. 97 Different rules may apply to e-mail transactions and worldwide web transactions. 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. The most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (. The leading Canadian decision in this area is the case of, 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. 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. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. The second issue was raised by me and touched upon contentions made by both parties in their written submissions. 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. Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile Solle v Butcher with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. At 4.15am, he sent an email to the first plaintiff, copied to the second plaintiff, with a happy emoticon following check out the prices here (see [19]. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. 102 Inevitably mistakes will occur in the course of electronic transmissions. Rather they assist in explaining how the common law has incrementally and cautiously allowed and continues to mould exceptions to the application of the objective theory of contracts. In Chwee Kin Keong v . A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. They were high-end commercial laser printers. The unusual product description of 55 which the fourth plaintiff alone reluctantly acknowledged as weird and unusual would have been a red light signal that an error had occurred. In addition to the law of (especially, unilateral) mistake, issues relating to the formation of a contract will be considered (including the law relating to offer and . Desmond further informed the first plaintiff that the sale price of each laser printer was in the region of $3,000 to $4,000. The decision ofV.K. 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. Taking into account the nature of the claims, the conduct of these proceedings by the plaintiffs and how the case for the plaintiffs unravelled, it would not, all things considered, be appropriate to interfere with the normal order of costs which ought to follow the result. 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. He is also described as the sole proprietor and manager of two other businesses that provide business support and consultancy. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. So there is a contract and therefore the defendant is liable in breach of contract. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus. Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. The plaintiffs refute that the error exonerates the defendant; they insist that a concluded contract is sacrosanct and must be honoured. They assert that spending only $105,996 to procure laser printers with an actual market value of $6,189,524 is wholly irrelevant; they are entitled to a good bargain. 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?? In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd [1999] 3 SLR 1 at [30] and [31], and Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [2001] 2 SLR 399 at [15]. It is important not to force into a Procrustean bed principles that have to be modified or discarded when considering novel aspects of the Internet. The leading Canadian decision in this area is the case of McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971) 22DLR(3d) 9 which, incidentally, was cited with approval by the Australian High Court in Taylor v Johnson. 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). The modern approach in contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. He placed another order for a further 150 printers at 3.14am, followed by two further orders for 300 printers each at about 3.56am and 3.59am. The defendant also sells HP products on its own website at http://www.digiland.com (the Digilandmall website). six plaintiffs ordered 1,606 printers. Introduction The decision of V.K. The plaintiffs could not coherently explain why neither they nor their lawyers had not attempted to correct the press reports at the material juncture. 111 In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 ("Chwee Kin Keong"), this court said at [101]: Under O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed), the court may grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of the proceedings. The recipient rule appears to be the logical default rule. Defence counsel indicated that he wanted to regularise the position on the agency relationship between third and sixth plaintiffs which had been thrashed out during cross-examination; he also wished to plead additional particulars of the respective plaintiffs actual knowledge of or belief in a mistake having occurred, which had emerged both before and during the hearing. V K Rajah JC. 1.47K subscribers Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] Facts The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from. Although a mistaken party will not often be able to discharge the onus of showing that the other party knew or must have known that he or she intended terms different from the terms of the offer or acceptance, it is not a necessary element that the party seeking to enforce the contract has actively contributed to the others mistake. The price of the laser printer, prior to 3.36pm on 8January 2003, was stipulated as $3,854 (exclusive of GST) on both the Digilandmall and HP websites (the websites), and as $3,448 on the Digiland commerce website. Why? He claims visiting, inter alia, the Epinions and Hardwarezone websites, and though it appears that there was at the material time a discussion thread on the error on the Hardwarezone website, the fourth plaintiff denied having seen this. 34 He also visited the Digilandmall website to familiarise himself with their standard terms and conditions. This may be too high a price to pay in this area of the law. 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. Basic principles of contract law continue to prevail in contracts made on the Internet. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. 12 The plaintiffs both collectively and individually maintained adamantly that while they thought that the price of $66 appeared to be a good deal they did not think that the website prices had been mistakenly placed or inserted. 41 The second plaintiff seems to have redefined the facts to achieve his objective in these proceedings. He classifies mistake in the following manner at 386: If attention is fixed merely on the factual situations, there are three possible types of mistake: common, mutual and unilateral. The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. Articles 11 (1) Country Singapore. He confirmed through these searches that the usual price of the laser printers was in the region of US$2,000. 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. In the High Court, the learned judge ("the Judge") decided, in the main, in favour of the Purchaser. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. The marrow of contractual relationships should be the parties intention to create a legal relationship. . There is no merit at all in this contention. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. Web Communication: A Review Of Chwee Kin Keong And Others v. Digilandmall.com pte ltd by Rokiah Kadir [2009] 8 CLJ xxi.