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. June Proctor, 1997, p. 13. They even discussed the possible scenario of the defendant not honouring the transactions. I am not prepared, after full consideration, to assume that the reporters misquoted the facts. Having said that, this exception must always be prudently invoked and judiciously applied; the exiguous scope of this exception is necessary to give the commercial community confidence that commercial transactions will almost invariably be honoured when all the objective contractual indicia are satisfied. He claims he then accessed the US HP website either through a Google web search engine or by abbreviating the url of the HP website. The most that the court can do in these circumstances is to refuse E [the other party, who wants the contract held void] specific performance, which lies in the discretion of the court and will probably be refused where E has been guilty of some degree of sharp practice. 2. 72 To effect the purchase transactions on the respective websites, the plaintiffs had to navigate through several web pages. Nor should parties regard pleadings as assuming an amoeba-like nature, susceptible to constant reshaping. It is therefore incumbent on the web merchant to protect himself, as he has both the means to do so and knowledge relating to the availability of any product that is being marketed. 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. There is no merit at all in this contention. The preface I do not know in no way detracts from this; the e-mail being addressed to a large group of 54 persons, the first plaintiff would simply not have wanted to commit himself by saying I know. I note that there have been powerful arguments made to the contrary. His evidence pertaining to the material points of knowledge and his communications with the other plaintiffs lacked credibility. Given that he left everything in the third plaintiffs hands, his legal position is, to that extent, identical to the third plaintiffs. 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. To confine this exception to instances of fraud would make the concept of unilateral mistake redundant. It is an important subject for the future development of English contract law. Similar works. 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. There must be consensus ad idem. I cannot accept that. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. A viewer from any part of the world may want to enter into a contract to purchase a product as advertised. 108 Chitty on Contracts (28th Ed, 1999) vol1 observes at para5-035: It is not clear whether for the mistake to be operative it must actually be known to the other party, or whether it is enough that it ought to have been apparent to any reasonable man. 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, in large measure, determined by making an objective appraisal of the exchanges between the parties. 111 This approach appears to have been endorsed by Judith PrakashJ in Ho Seng Lee Construction Pte Ltd v Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd [2001] 4 SLR 407 at [84] where it was also accepted that: The test is an objective one based on what a reasonable person would have known in similar circumstances. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. There is one important exception to this principle. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. It was the defendants computer system. After hearing their evidence, observing them and considering the submissions made on their behalf, there was no doubt in my mind that they were fully conscious that an unfortunate and egregious mistake had indeed been made by the defendant. How come got such thing? The plaintiffs could not coherently explain why neither they nor their lawyers had not attempted to correct the press reports at the material juncture. Keywords Contract Online Store Mistake Pricing Mistake Citation There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. 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 law of agency and that pertaining to the formation of contracts are expressly recognised in s13(8) of the ETA as continuing to apply to electronic transactions. 2 [2004] 2 SLR 594 ("the Digilandmall case") (The decision was very recently affirmed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2, albeit on somewhat different grounds and where the focus was on the law of unilateral mistake rather than formation of contract.)]. He seemed to suggest that in a number of cases going as far back as Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3App Cas 459, the contracts in issue therein should be treated as only being voidable in equity: see Solle v Butcher at 692, Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 at 207 and dicta in Magee v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd [1969] 2 QB 507 at 514 where he opined that: A common mistake, even on a most fundamental matter, does not make a contract void at law: but it makes it voidable in equity. Examples of such mistakes would include (a)human error (b)programming of software errors and (c)transmission problems in the communication systems. 109 This cautious statement by Chitty needs to be carefully reconsidered in the context of recent developments in this area of law. No harm trying right? These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. 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. It may be impractical and unjust to demand that the mistaken party actually prove the knowledge of a substantial number of people who effect numerous purchases. Market orders: order to be executed immediately at the best available price. This was not noticed by the company until over 4,000 printers were ordered. Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. He held that the Written Offer was accepted by the . 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 e-mail was given a high importance priority and captioned go load it now!!. The individualistic ethic seeks to maximise individual goals and the community ethic seeks to set norms for commercial morality and to ensure that fair dealing and community cohesiveness are observed and maintained. He claimed that he had not asked her to do the research and that she had done it independently. SingletonJ held at 568: The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff could not reasonably have supposed that that offer contained the offerers real intention. 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. 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. 134 It is not really in issue that contracts can be effectively concluded over the Internet and that programmed computers sending out automated responses can bind the sender. For example, in the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 ("Digilandmall"), affirmed on appeal in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502 without considering this particular issue, V K Rajah JC (as he then was) observed, as follows (at [139]): This can be before or during the trial, or after judgment or on appeal. 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. 58 The fifth plaintiff was first informed by the second plaintiff at about 2.30am about cheap laser printers being available for purchase. So there is a contract and therefore the defendant is liable in breach of contract. In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. If anything, certain portions of the affidavits raised even more doubts about the plaintiffs credibility. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 25659 BC Ltd v 456795 BC Ltd (1999) 171DLR(4th) 470 at [25] to [26], is instructive: 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in First City Capital Ltd v BC Building Corp (1989), 43BLR 29 (SC). Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . It is asserted that since mistake had not been pleaded as an equitable defence, equity cannot be invoked by the defendant. Inflexible and mechanical rules lead to injustice. 21 The first plaintiff must have realised at the outset that he would have to explain with a certain measure of credibility the purport and significance of all his Internet communications between 1.00am and 3.00am on 13January 2003. 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.
Having Twins Ruined My Life,
Luray, Va Newspaper Obituaries,
New Living Translation Heresy,
Articles C
