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. 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. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. He appeared to be consummately familiar with Internet practices and was forced to concede that he thought it was weird and unusual when he saw the number 55 on the relevant webpages in place of the actual product description. 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd 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. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. [emphasis added]. COURT. It has been pithily said that the rules of procedure should be viewed as a handmaiden and not a mistress, to be slavishly followed. The evidence incontrovertibly indicates that the first plaintiff himself entertained this view for the entire period he was in communication with the second and third plaintiffs. 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. 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. Other Jurisdictions. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004 . To confine this exception to instances of fraud would make the concept of unilateral mistake redundant. 75 Each of the automated confirmatory e-mail responses carried under Availability of product the notation call to enquire. Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. They want Digiland to honour the deal or at least to compensate them. However, not all principles will or can apply in the same manner that they apply to traditional paper-based and oral contracts. The court held that the acceptance has been completed once it is posted although here, the defendants actually did not receive the letter before they sold it to someone else. [2004] SGHC 71 - eLitigation A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. 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. Article24 of the Convention states: For the purposes of this Part of the Convention, an offer, declaration of acceptance or any other indication of intention reaches the addressee when it is made orally to him or delivered by any other means to him personally, to his place of business or mailing address or, if he does not have a place of business or mailing address, to his habitual residence. 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. Market orders: order to be executed immediately at the best available price. I do not accept that there were no discussions between them on the price posting being an error. This final mass e-mail only reinforces my view that the first plaintiff consistently and continuously entertained the view that the price posting on the HP website was a mistake. 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). Unfortunately, they mistakenly offered the price at so much per pound in place of so much per piece. He subsequently sent the web link to the Epinions website to the first and second plaintiffs. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. Has an agreement been reached or not? Further, the character of the mistake was such that any reasonable person similarly circumstanced as each of the plaintiffs would have had every reason to believe that a manifest error had occurred. Counsel however contends that even if this e-mail were to be read literally, this should not affect the first plaintiffs own purchase that had taken place an hour earlier. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. The relevant text reads: WHILE surfing the Net at about 2am on Monday, MrTan Wei Teck stumbled upon an offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. His own counsels description of him as careful and prudent only serves to corroborate this. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. The reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. In-house law team, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502, Contract unilateral mistake Internet Contract Consensus ad Idem Meeting of the Minds Acceptance Offer Void Error. It was only then that the defendant promptly took steps to remove all references to the laser printer from all three websites. A typical but not essential defining characteristic of conduct of this nature is the haste or urgency with which the non-mistaken party seeks to conclude a contract; the haste is induced by a latent anxiety that the mistaken party may learn of the error and as a result correct the error or change its mind about entering into the contract. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. http://www.epinions.com/HP_Color_LaserJet_4600_Series_Printer_Printers. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 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. 91 There is no real conundrum as to whether contractual principles apply to Internet contracts. Case law Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmallcom Pte Ltd suggests that General Rule. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. 84 It is axiomatic that a court will generally be cautious if not reluctant to effect any amendments once the hearing has commenced; even more so once the evidential phase of the proceedings has been completed. 4 The defendant is a company that sells information technology (IT) related products over the Internet to consumers. The financial consequences could be considerable. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. Solicita tu prueba. The Vienna Sales Convention (the Convention) applies in Singapore as a consequence of the Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act (Cap283A, 1996Rev Ed). He also claimed to have talked to buyers in the market about reselling the laser printers and that the failure to procure the units would tarnish his reputation. 37 The second plaintiff was insistent in his evidence that there was no communication from the first plaintiff alerting him to the likely existence of the mistake; he contends the first plaintiff merely apprised him of a good deal and sent him the weblink to the HP website. He is also described as the sole proprietor and manager of two other businesses that provide business support and consultancy. Comments Published in English: [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website.. Cases Adopting an objective standard, executory contracts have in fact been entered into and concluded between the parties. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Borneo United Sawmills Sdn Bhd v. MUI Continental Insurance Bhd (Marine insurance - Loss of goods - Claim for loss of goods under Marine Cargo Policy) [2009] 8 CLJ 217. 57 Malcolm Tan is 30 years old and a practising advocate and solicitor. A contract is normally concluded when an offer made by one party (the offeror) is accepted by the party to whom the offer has been made (the offeree). The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in, 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in. 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. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. This is an inane argument. 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. Thus, 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. The second, third, fourth and sixth plaintiffs are the only individuals who ordered more than a hundred laser printers each. After referring to a series of leading cases, including the often quoted decision of ThomsonJ in McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971), 22DLR(3d) 9 (Ont HCJ), Chief Justice McLachlin said at p37: 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: Solle, supra; Belle River Community Arena v WJC Kaufman Co (1978), 20OR(2d) 447, 4 BLR 231, 87DLR(3d) 761 (CA). He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. 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. In the recent case of Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005), the Singapore Courts were provided with an opportunity to revisit the law concerning mistakes made in the formation of a contract, in particular, in the context of online contracts.