chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs acted with indecent haste in the dead of the night in placing as many orders as each of them felt their financial resources credibly permitted them to do. Vincent. 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. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. In these circumstances we can see no option but so to hold. He commenced practice in 2000 and currently practices with the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this action. This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. These considerations take precedence over the culpability associated with causing the mistake. He is 32 years old and conducts his own network marketing business. They are described by their counsel in submissions as risk takers, business minded and profit seeking. A party may not snap at an obviously mistaken offer: McMaster. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. 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. Given his professional and business background, he must have realised that the $66 price posting on the HP website was an error. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79] infra). If anything, certain portions of the affidavits raised even more doubts about the plaintiffs credibility. The argument is that, despite appearances, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and that therefore the transaction must necessarily be void. So its going to be our reputation at stake, we thought we had a successful transaction.. The object of the exercise is to determine what each party intended, or must be deemed to have intended. The other knows, or must be taken to know, of his mistake. 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. - This is also the position as regards friends: see Coward v. MIB (1963). Adopting an objective standard, executory contracts have in fact been entered into and concluded between the parties. Daniel was previously a partner and head of the technology practice at Messrs Rajah & Tann. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. 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. 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. Altogether he sought to purchase 760 units, the largest number of orders placed by anyone between 8 and 13January 2003. (See for example the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1AllER 512.) There is however much to be said in favour of rationalising the law of mistake under a single doctrine incorporating the best elements of common law and equity. 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. The first and fifth plaintiffs ordered exactly a hundred laser printers each. This provision acknowledges that the essential framework of an electronic contract needs to be considered in the usual manner; in other words, principles of contract formation, consideration, terms and conditions, choice of law and jurisdictional issues need to be examined. Quoine was operating as a market-maker on their own platform. Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see. Typical transactions are usually but not invariably characterised by (a)indecent alacrity; and (b)behaviour that any fair-minded commercial person similarly circumstanced would regard as a patent affront to commercial fairplay or morality. Parties Chwee Kin Keong & Others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Decision date 12/04/2004. 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. Administration law is the actions made by a government, which adversely affects an individual. As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. This was summarily resolved. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. This case is a paradigm example of an error on the human side. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. 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. In some unusual circumstances where a unilateral mistake exists, the law can find a contract on terms intended by the mistaken party. There are persuasive arguments against extending the litmus test of unconscionability to all mistake-type situations. Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004 . How could one seek to calculate the profit margin before finding out the true market price of the laser printer? One reason for this is the eternal tension faced by courts and judges alike in seeking a just equilibrium between commercial certainty and justice in a particular case. It is plain that the defendant had given careful consideration to this issue and was prepared to contract on the basis that it would be able to comply with any orders hence, there was no reference to any order being subject to stock availability. Contract doctrine is substantially predicated upon achieving an ethical equilibrium between the individualistic ethic and community ethic in order to protect reasonable or legitimate expectations. 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. There is however much to be said in favour of rationalising the law of mistake under a single doctrine incorporating the best elements of common law and equity. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. 28 In any event, the first plaintiffs commercial background and business experience alone would have amply alerted him to the likelihood of the pricing being a mistake, even without his conversation with Desmond. That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. 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. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. 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. 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 76 On Monday, 13January 2003, at about 9.15am, an employee of the defendant received a call from a prospective customer inquiring whether the defendant was aware of the posted price of $66 for the laser printers on the HP website. As with any normal contract, Internet merchants have to be cautious how they present an advertisement, since this determines whether the advertisement will be construed as an invitation to treat or a unilateral contract. We are, Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile, In this case we have heard full argument, which has provided what we believe has been the first opportunity in this court for a full and mature consideration of the relation between, 129 The careful analysis of case law undertaken by that court yields a cogent and forceful argument that Lord DenningMR was plainly attempting to side-step, 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. 50 Ow Eng Hwee, 29 years old, is another network marketing entrepreneur. Slade, in a well reasoned article written not long after, 128 The most significant judicial pronouncement supporting this view emanates from the recent English Court of Appeal in, Thus the premise of the equitys intrusion into the effects of the common law is that the common law rule in question is seen in the particular case to work injustice, and for some reason the common law cannot cure itself. As this is a critical issue, it is imperative that each of their positions be carefully evaluated. 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.