chwee kin keong v digilandmall high courtarkansas stand your ground law explained

This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus. The case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 71, and the decision by VK Rajah JC, has received much public attention. 18 He said he later conducted some searches using the Google search engine and ascertained that the laser printer could be sold at about US$1,300 in certain markets. Their Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 ok but how come got such a good deal? (See for example the approach in, 142 The plaintiffs were bound by personal relationships as well as past and present common commercial interests. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. Both parties displayed a considerable amount of imagination in dealing with them. case concerning the purchase of laser printers from an online retailer, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall 76 : To effect the purchase transactions on the respective websites, the plaintiffs had to navigate through several web pages. Failure to do so could also result in calamitous repercussions. 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. Case name. V K Rajah JC. 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. Given its global reach and ever changing technological advancements, Internet usage will pose a myriad of issues for resolution. 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. No cash had been collected. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. 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. Bulletin_11_2009 - CLJLaw The fourth plaintiffs single transaction with the Digilandmall website was confirmed by a similar automated response stating Successful Purchase Confirmation from Digilandmall. 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. 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. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. It is germane to observe that none of the cases purporting to follow Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 have with any degree of clarity defined the parameters of equitable mistake in contradistinction to a common law mistake. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another 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. Quite apart from this singularly precise timing, his exchange with Ms Toh is noteworthy for the following reason: when he told her about the various concluded purchases of the laser printers, she immediately thought it was a mistake and that HP would not honour the contracts. In other words, he really wanted to ascertain the true price of the laser printer. PDF Blips And Blunders: The Law Concerning Mistakes Made In Electronic C {Q V There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! An FAQ guide to electronic contracts in Singapore - Lexology The shopping cart website page carried the insertion call to enquire under the heading Availability of product. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. In some unusual circumstances where a unilateral mistake exists, the law can find a contract on terms intended by the mistaken party. 50 Ow Eng Hwee, 29 years old, is another network marketing entrepreneur. The court found that parties when . The price for equitable justice is uncertainty. 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. To my mind, the confirmation through the subsequent searches that the actual price of the laser printer was, in fact, US$2,000 would, if anything, have affirmed his belief that an error had occurred. As this is a critical issue, it is imperative that each of their positions be carefully evaluated. Digilandmall - 502 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [2005] 1 SLR(R When giving evidence, he struck me as cautious, taking great pains to convey the impression that his numerous online enquiries that morning were routinely carried out without any real inkling that an error had occurred. 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. I cannot accept that. I was neither impressed nor convinced. 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. Needless to say, he could not satisfactorily explain why his previous solicitors had formed such a view when preparing his affidavit and why he had affirmed the same. 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. They assumed that to be the position. Section11 of the ETA expressly provides that offers and acceptances may be made electronically. No cash had been collected. There is no question, however, that he placed the orders, that these orders were received by the HP website and that the same automated response sent to the other plaintiffs was sent out to him. 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. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. In the High Court, the learned judge ("the Judge") decided, in the main, in favour of the Purchaser. The credit card payments had not been processed. The text of the e-mail further reinforces the point. 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. It appears there were a series of sms messages between them and at least a few telephone discussions while the purchases were being effected. Both parties expressed that they wished to effect amendments to mirror evidence that had been adduced in the proceedings. 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. This was presumably to render the training more lifelike. After establishing from the web pages that the price quoted for the laser printer was indeed $66, he proceeded to make searches through search engines like Yahoo and visited the website of Hardware.com. Though he initially denied this in cross-examination, he had to accept this when confronted with his own e-mail as irrefutable evidence. 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). 19 Later in the morning, at about 4.15am, the fourth plaintiff sent the following e-mail to the first plaintiff, copied to the second plaintiff only: Subject: Re: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! Application of such a rule may however result in contracts being formed outside the jurisdiction if not properly drafted. . In Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd, the English Court of Appeal decided that Solle v Butcher was wrong to hold that there was an equitable doctrine of common mistakes. The law of mistake has generated its own genre of mistakes and obfuscation. Limit orders: order to be executed only when the desired price is available. 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 coz they might change it anytime, are all compelling in reflecting his state of mind and awareness that an error had occurred. 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. That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. 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. In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd [1999] 3 SLR 1 at [30] and [31], and Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [2001] 2 SLR 399 at [15]. Even if it were to be held that there is now a general test of unconscionability applicable to all types of mistake, the plaintiffs contentions will not take them far. hahaha means S$132, Desmond 13/01/20 01:43 even $500 is a steal. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. I would not however invariably equate the required conduct with fraud. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! Pginas: 93: High Court - Suit n 202 of 2003. This is to be contrasted with: Hare, Inequitable Mistake (2003) 62CLJ 29, Chandler et al, Common Mistake: Theoretical Justification and Remedial Inflexibility [2004] JBL 34. This new template was designed to facilitate instantaneous price changes allowing them to be simultaneously reflected in the relevant Internet web pages. Singapore Court of Appeal. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order particulars, checkout-order confirmation, check-out payment details and payment whether by cash on delivery or by credit card. In Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du NordSA [1989] 1 WLR 255 at 266, Lord DenningMRs views were doubted and described as reflecting an individual opinion by SteynJ (as he then was). Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:42 I want at least one for personal use 2 would be good coz my gf needs one too any more than that would be a bonus ;-), Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 anyway, I dont mind buying over if you have frens who want to sell buy at twice the price!! The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. Delivery was merely a timing issue. 86 In cases where the facts raised in the proposed amendments have been addressed during the evidence and submissions and, particularly, where the opposing side has also had an opportunity to address the very same points, there can hardly ever be any real prejudice. The programme trigger on that website automatically and instantaneously initiated the insertion of similar contents onto all three websites. Nor should parties regard pleadings as assuming an amoeba-like nature, susceptible to constant reshaping. He then carried out some checks on the Yahoo search engine to ascertain whether the printer model existed and whether the laser printer could be sold at more than $66. 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about 2.00am, the first plaintiff also sent them, via e-mail, a weblink of the relevant HP website pages. Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of Fusion of - Jstor Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 129 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 Bell v Lever in a naked attempt to achieve equitable justice in the face of the poverty of the common law.

Guerreros Puerto Rico Cast, What Happens If You Drop Out Of The Naval Academy, Articles C