chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

This is an area that needs to be rationalised in a coherent and structured manner. 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. Despite the general views expressed in Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151CLR 422 on equitable mistake, it seems to be generally accepted in Australia as well, that this class of cases requires special mention and consideration. 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 . 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. He has common business interests with the first, third and fourth plaintiffs. Their There are in this connection two schools of thought. As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. In the context of its true market value the absurd price of $66 was almost the commercial equivalent of virtually giving away the laser printers. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:17 what hp online?? Amendments after conclusion of submissions. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction. The common law has drawn the line in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. The number of orders he placed was nothing short of brazen. His own counsels description of him as careful and prudent only serves to corroborate this. Other Jurisdictions. Administrative Law in Common Law Countries. They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. 5 A related website for corporate clients and re-sellers (the Digiland commerce website) is owned and operated by a related entity, Digiland International Limited (DIL). Why? Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,( [2005]SGCA 2 ) . The non-mistaken partys appreciation that there is no real offer on the contracts literal terms undermines the basis of the objective theory and necessarily imports the lack of subjective intention on the part of the mistaken party. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:41 u want it for profit or personal use? Evidence was given that if phone calls were indeed placed, they would from time to time limit the number of sales. 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. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. He confirmed through these searches that the usual price of the laser printers was in the region of US$2,000. When pressed why he asked MsToh to do this research, the fifth plaintiffs response was unsatisfactory. This, by an uncanny coincidence, was the same person whom he had intended to consult in the resale of the laser printers a topic that he had discussed with the second plaintiff earlier that morning. 144 I find, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs, given each of their backgrounds, would in any event, each have separately realised and appreciated, before placing their purchase orders, that a manifest mistake had occurred even if no communications on the error had taken place between them. 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502; [2005] SGCA 2. The fourth plaintiff duly accessed the e-mail the second plaintiff had sent him pursuant to their conversation. ! with its importance set at high. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:40 if any friend got extra printer u want? 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. 51 The fourth plaintiff received a phone call from the second plaintiff at about 2.00am, informing him that there was money to be made through the purchase of laser printers. I was neither impressed nor convinced. When notified and satisfied that this transaction was successful as well, he placed a final order at 4.21am for ten laser printers on the HP website, charging this to his credit card. Yet in other aspects, he could recollect, with crystal clear precision and clarity, details of what had transpired. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. Both parties expressed that they wished to effect amendments to mirror evidence that had been adduced in the proceedings. It is an important subject for the future development of English contract law. The sixth plaintiff is precluded from asserting his ignorance. 116 The term snapping up was aptly coined by JamesLJ in Tamplin v James (1880) 15ChD 215 at 221. 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. Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. 153 These statements of jurisprudence are of cardinal importance in understanding and fashioning the law of contract. 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. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. . He appeared distinctly uncomfortable during several phases of his cross-examination and his answers on crucial points were evasive and often vague.. His evidence in relation to the level and nature of communications he had with the second and third plaintiffs on the morning in question lacked candour. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. It is pertinent to note that she placed orders for 32 laser printers including 20 units she ordered on behalf of her sister. Normally, however, the task involves no more than an objective analysis of the words used by the parties. 133 It is however clear that the law should not take cognisance of bad bargains and misapprehension that do not affect a fundamental or essential aspect of a contractual relationship. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. 8 The proper description of the laser printer, HPC9660A Color LaserJet 4600, was, as a result of the accident, replaced by the numerals 55; while the numerals 66 replaced the correct price of the laser printer priced at $3,854 and the numerals 77 replaced the original corporate price of the laser printer priced at $3,448. Nor should parties regard pleadings as assuming an amoeba-like nature, susceptible to constant reshaping. No cash had been collected. The case of Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566 is incontrovertibly the leading authority in this area. The contract was held to be void because there was no consensus on the terms. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. Having ascertained that the laser printer was being advertised at $66, he decided to undertake further online searches through Yahoo.com and Ebay.com. We are only concerned with the question whether relief might be given for common mistake in circumstances wider than those stipulated in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161. Most telling of all, I note that the first to fifth plaintiffs exhibited identical reports in each of their affidavits without any qualification whatsoever. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 34 He also visited the Digilandmall website to familiarise himself with their standard terms and conditions. The most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] 3 WLR 1371 at [123]) states: 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 only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. The law may not imply a condition precedent as to the availability of stock simply to bail out an Internet merchant from a bad bargain, a fortiori in the sale of information and probably services, as the same constraints as to availability and supply may not usually apply to such sales. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in Gallie v Lee [1969] 2 Ch 17 at 33 (affirmed on appeal in Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004) that in Cundy v Lindsay there was no contract at all. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. 126 The Australian courts appear to have relied on the views of Lord DenningMR in Solle v Butcher to establish a wholly different doctrinal approach to mistake and have purportedly applied a fused concept of law and equity to the law on 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. v . Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. Slade, in a well reasoned article written not long after Solle v Butcher was decided, asserted: In general, it is submitted that there are no cases which support the proposition that in cases of unilateral mistake, V [the enforcing party] may obtain this relief where the contract is not void at law and there has been no misrepresentation. 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. Prior to being self-employed, he was a corporate banker with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, for four years. While I agree with what Madam Justice Mclachlin said so far as it goes, I do not believe she intended to imply that there must be a conscious taking advantage by one party of the other in all cases.

Who Inherited Ginger Rogers Estate, Articles C