Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall: Unilateral Mistake & Online Contracts

In Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a breach of contract claim by six plaintiffs against Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. The plaintiffs had placed orders for Hewlett Packard laser printers on Digilandmall's website after the printers were mistakenly priced at $66.00 instead of $3,854. The court, presided over by V K Rajah JC, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the plaintiffs were aware, or ought to have been aware, of the pricing error and were thus attempting to take advantage of a unilateral mistake.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Six plaintiffs sued Digilandmall for breach of contract after they attempted to purchase laser printers at a mistakenly low price. The court dismissed the claims.

1.7 Decision Date

11 April 2004

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Malcolm Tan of Tan S L and Partners Tan Sok Ling of Tan S L and Partners Mohan Das Vijayaratnam of Tan S L and Partners
Chwee Kin Keong	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Malcolm Tan of Tan S L and Partners Tan Sok Ling of Tan S L and Partners Mohan Das Vijayaratnam of Tan S L and Partners
Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claims Dismissed	Won	Philip Fong Yeng Fatt of Harry Elias Partnership Doris Chia Ming Lai of Harry Elias Partnership
Tan Wei Teck	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Malcolm Tan of Tan S L and Partners Tan Sok Ling of Tan S L and Partners Mohan Das Vijayaratnam of Tan S L and Partners
Yeow Kinn Keong Mark	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Malcolm Tan of Tan S L and Partners Tan Sok Ling of Tan S L and Partners Mohan Das Vijayaratnam of Tan S L and Partners
Ow Eng Hwee	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Malcolm Tan of Tan S L and Partners Tan Sok Ling of Tan S L and Partners Mohan Das Vijayaratnam of Tan S L and Partners
Yeow Kinn Oei	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Malcolm Tan of Tan S L and Partners Tan Sok Ling of Tan S L and Partners Mohan Das Vijayaratnam of Tan S L and Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
V K Rajah	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Malcolm Tan	Tan S L and Partners
Tan Sok Ling	Tan S L and Partners
Mohan Das Vijayaratnam	Tan S L and Partners
Philip Fong Yeng Fatt	Harry Elias Partnership
Doris Chia Ming Lai	Harry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

Digilandmall mistakenly posted the price of HP laser printers at $66.00 instead of $3,854 on its website.
The plaintiffs, six friends, placed orders for a total of 1,606 laser printers.
The plaintiffs were aware of the price discrepancy and the potential for profit.
The defendant's automated system sent confirmation notes to the plaintiffs.
The defendant discovered the error and refused to fulfill the orders.
The plaintiffs claimed they were unaware of the mistake and sought to enforce the contracts.
The plaintiffs made Internet searches to ascertain the true market price of the laser printers.

5. Formal Citations

Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, Suit 202/2003/E, [2004] SGHC 71

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-01-08	Defendant mistakenly posted the price of laser printers at $66.00 on its websites.
2003-01-13	Plaintiffs placed orders for 1,606 laser printers.
2003-01-13	Defendant removed the advertisement from its websites and informed customers of the error.
2003-01-15	Straits Times reported on the printer error.
2004-04-12	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Unilateral Mistake
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the pricing error, rendering the contracts void.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Knowledge of mistake
  - Snapping up
- Related Cases:
  - [1939] 3 All ER 566
Contract Formation
- Outcome: The court found that the elements of offer and acceptance were satisfied, but the contracts were vitiated by unilateral mistake.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Offer
  - Acceptance
  - Intention to create legal relations
Consideration
- Outcome: The court held that there was ample consideration in the form of mutual promises.
- Category: Substantive
Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed the defendant's amendments to the pleadings, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Specific Performance
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
E-commerce Law

11. Industries

Retail
Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Grainger & Son v Gough	House of Lords	Yes	[1896] AC 325	England and Wales	Cited to explain the legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat.
Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise	House of Lords	Yes	[1976] 1 All ER 117	England and Wales	Cited to explain the legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat.
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson	House of Lords	Yes	[2003] 3 WLR 1371	England and Wales	Cited for the objective theory of contract formation and the exception for known mistakes.
Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for adopting a similar approach to the objective theory of contract formation.
Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 399	Singapore	Cited for adopting a similar approach to the objective theory of contract formation.
Hartog v Colin & Shields	King's Bench Division	Yes	[1939] 3 All ER 566	England and Wales	Cited as the leading authority on unilateral mistake where the non-mistaken party knew or should have known of the mistake.
Tamplin v James	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1880) 15 Ch D 215	England and Wales	Cited for the concept of 'snapping up' an offer.
Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] Ch 259	England and Wales	Cited for importing the concept of Nelsonian knowledge.
Baden v Societe Generale pour Favoriser le Developpement du Commerce et de l’Industrie en France SA	Chancery Division	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 509	England and Wales	Cited for the framework of various categories of knowledge.
OT Africa Line Ltd v Vickers Plc	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 700	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the objective theory ought not to apply if a party had knowledge that a mistake had occurred.
Ho Seng Lee Construction Pte Ltd v Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2001] 4 SLR 407	Singapore	Cited for endorsing the approach that the objective theory ought not to apply if a party had knowledge that a mistake had occurred.
Taylor v Johnson	High Court	Yes	(1983) 151 CLR 422	Australia	Cited for the views expressed on equitable mistake.
25659 BC Ltd v 456795 BC Ltd	British Columbia Court of Appeal	Yes	(1999) 171 DLR (4th) 470	Canada	Cited for the discussion on the law of mistake.
McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd	Ontario High Court	Yes	(1971) 22 DLR (3d) 9	Canada	Cited for applying Hartog v Colin & Shields and holding that the parties were not ad idem.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 All ER 512	England and Wales	Cited for the modern approach in contract law requiring very little to find the existence of consideration.
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] QB 679	England and Wales	Cited for the analysis of case law and the argument that Lord Denning MR 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.
Solle v Butcher	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1950] 1 KB 671	England and Wales	Cited for Lord Denning's views on common mistake.
Lewis v Averay	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1972] 1 QB 198	England and Wales	Cited for Lord Denning's views on common mistake.
Magee v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1969] 2 QB 507	England and Wales	Cited for Lord Denning's views on common mistake.
Gallie v Lee	Chancery Division	Yes	[1969] 2 Ch 17	England and Wales	Cited for Lord Denning's views on common mistake.
Saunders v Anglia Building Society	House of Lords	Yes	[1971] AC 1004	England and Wales	Cited for Lord Denning's views on common mistake.
Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord SA	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1989] 1 WLR 255	England and Wales	Cited for doubting Lord Denning's views.
Bell v Lever Brothers, Limited	House of Lords	Yes	[1932] AC 161	England and Wales	Cited for the views on common mistake.
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission	High Court	Yes	(1951) 84 CLR 377	Australia	Cited for the views on common mistake.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] 3 SLR 405	Singapore	Cited for the function of the court is to try as far as practical experience allows, to ensure that the reasonable expectations of honest men are not disappointed.
Cundy v Lindsay	House of Lords	Yes	(1878) 3 App Cas 459	England and Wales	Cited for Lord Denning's views on common mistake.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act (Cap 283A, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Unilateral Mistake
Invitation to Treat
Snapping Up
Objective Theory of Contract
Consensus ad Idem
Electronic Transactions
Automated Responses
Price Posting
Arbitrage
Constructive Knowledge

15.2 Keywords

contract law
unilateral mistake
online contracts
e-commerce
singapore
digilandmall
hewlett packard
laser printers

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	95
Mistake	80
E-Commerce	60
Civil Practice	40

16. Subjects

Contract Law
E-commerce
Mistake
Civil Litigation