This can result from human interphasing, machine error or a combination of such factors. This is an inane argument. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. 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. This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. The law of mistake has generated its own genre of mistakes and obfuscation. From time to time there will be cases where this is an overriding consideration. 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. These orders were placed at a price of S$66 each, whereas the actual price was S$3,854 each. The bites, however, may taste quite different and cause different sensations. This can be before or during the trial, or after judgment or on appeal. 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. Prior to being self-employed, he was a corporate banker with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, for four years. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004 . 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. 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 rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. He has incorporated an Internet business Dreamcupid in which the second plaintiff has an interest. When considering the appropriate rule to apply, it stands to reason that as between sender and receiver, the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events. This cannot be right. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. 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. 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. This is a matter perhaps best left to law reform rather than to incremental judge-made law which may sow the seeds of confusion and harvest the returns of uncertainty. Therefore, administrative law encompasses Is the Right to Privacy Adequately Protected? Why? Limit orders: order to be executed only when the desired price is available. Altogether he sought to purchase 760 units, the largest number of orders placed by anyone between 8 and 13January 2003. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 68 Yeow Kinn Oei is 29 years old and the brother of the third plaintiff. 149 It is clear from the authorities reviewed that such a contract, if entered into by a party with actual or presumed knowledge of an error, is void from the outset. 107 As the law now stands, mistakes that are not fundamental or which do not relate to an essential term do not vitiate consent. While they did not invariably admit that their searches were made prior to each of the respective transactions, it was plain that they did not tell the whole truth about, 149 It is clear from the authorities reviewed that such a contract, if entered into by a party with actual or presumed knowledge of an error, is void from the outset. This is an area that needs to be rationalised in a coherent and structured manner. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. Ltd} has the makings of a student's classic for several rea sons: it presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance; it is set in the context 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). - This is also the position as regards friends: see Coward v. MIB (1963). Caveat emptor remains a cornerstone of the law of contract and business relationships. In evidence he explained his conduct in the following manner: I felt that I had done all that was conceivably within my means to ensure that the Price was not a mistake. This case is a paradigm example of an error on the human side. This is approved in a Singaporean case, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd . In such cases, where the purchaser has readily accessible means from the very same computer screen, to ascertain through a simple search whether a mistake has taken place, the onus could be upon him to exonerate himself of imputed knowledge of the mistake. The law ought to take a practical approach in dealing with such cases if it appears that by exercising reasonable care the true facts ought to be known. He tried to convey the impression that it never struck him that a mistake in the price posting of the laser printer could have occurred. In a physical sale, the merchant can immediately turn down an offer to purchase a product that has been advertised; otherwise he may be inundated with offers he cannot justify. Clout issue 43. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. There are many different shades of sharp practice or impropriety. 81 Plaintiffs counsel thereafter responded somewhat curiously. Users may find that it may not be as forgiving as more traditional methods of communications. 26 It is clear from the priority status accorded to the e-mail that the first plaintiff was sharing his knowledge of a good deal. 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. This was summarily resolved. He claimed that when he could not find the identical model on the US HP website he had assumed initially that the laser printer might be obsolete and was therefore being off-loaded cheaply at $66. hahaha means S$132, Desmond 13/01/20 01:43 even $500 is a steal. 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). The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. Chwee Kin Keong decision - Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; - Studocu Caso 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 jc tan sok IgnorarExperimenta 'Pergunta a um Especialista' Pergunta a um especialista 89 In the circumstances, I had little hesitation in allowing the amendments sought by the defendant. The first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. From time to time they communicate with each other, 4 The defendant is a company that sells information technology (IT) related products over the Internet to consumers. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. [1955] 2 Q.B. A party may not snap at an obviously mistaken offer: McMaster. The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. In Canada, the latter suffices. A viewer from any part of the world may want to enter into a contract to purchase a product as advertised. He admitted in cross-examination to being the lawyer for this group of people when they had questions like these in the present proceedings. 77 Soon after the defendant informed the plaintiffs that they did not intend to deliver the laser printers, the plaintiffs took their claims to the press. He would make some basic enquiries to ascertain whether there is anything faulty with the product in an attempt to seek an explanation for or understanding of the basis for the price discrepancy; he might alternatively try and ascertain whether perhaps the price differential is part of some spectacular promotional exercise. It is set in the context of internet contracting. He in effect forwarded the first plaintiffs e-mail to them. Being fully conscious of the pivotal nature of this point, I have duly accorded particular attention to the evidence and credibility of each of the plaintiffs. As this is a critical issue, it is imperative that each of their positions be carefully evaluated. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! Hence the first plaintiffs cryptically worded but highly significant mass e-mail where he adverted to the fact that he did not know if the defendant would honour the contracts but in any event wished all the recipients good luck. Case Summary 128 The most significant judicial pronouncement supporting this view emanates from the recent English Court of Appeal in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679, a case of common mistake. The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. 154 Interestingly, of the 784 persons who placed 1,008 orders for 4,086 laser printers, only these six plaintiffs have attempted to enforce their purported contractual rights. In Chwee Kin Keong v . 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. 2 Who is correct? He appears to have been in constant communication with the second plaintiff and to have received and read the mass e-mail from the first plaintiff after he placed his first purchase order. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). His revelation that he did not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase, not to mention the articulation of his hope that by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00, 27 The first plaintiff obviously took the view that the advertisement should be acted upon urgently. No modern authority was cited to me suggesting an intended commercial transaction of this nature could ever fail for want of consideration. This may be too high a price to pay in this area of the law. 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. Needless to say, this goes to the very heart of the claims sustainability. After the defendant intimated that it would not be delivering the laser printer, he sent an e-mail excoriating it, asserting, inter alia: Myself, and other people who have been disappointed by you decision, will definitely spread word of the companys lack of honour and integrity to everyone we know and all over the internet! 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. They deny having had any communications amongst themselves about the possibility, let alone probability, that the price posting on the website could have been a mistake. It is unequivocally unethical conduct tantamount to sharp practice. 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. His Internet research alone would have confirmed that. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:43 coz the HP laser colour printer sells for at least 3 to 4k outside, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 from US I heard is about USD 2k, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 its HP and Laser and Coloured. No cash had been collected. The essence of unilateral mistake is the knowledge or deemed knowledge of a mistake and though fraud may often be present it is not an essential ingredient. Counsels approach is flawed. What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors: what is objectively and subjectively known, the magnitude of the transaction(s), the circumstances in which the orders are placed and whether any unusual factors are apparent. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. Is this a case of poetic justice? Though he initially denied this in cross-examination, he had to accept this when confronted with his own e-mail as irrefutable evidence. 33 See the Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd[2005] 1 SLR 502 (noted by Yeo, TM ' Great Peace: a distant disturbance ' (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 393 Google Scholar; KFK Low 'Unilateral mistake at common law and in equity' [2005] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 423; and PW . 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.
Pork Loin With Onion Soup Mix In Oven, Hobbs And Shaw Shoulder Holster, Articles C