chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

Having ascertained that the laser printer was being advertised at $66, he decided to undertake further online searches through Yahoo.com and Ebay.com. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract. Imagine the effect of this negative publicity on your future sales! 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. 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. reference was made by the court to "fraud or a very high degree of misconduct" before the non- mistaken party could be . An FAQ guide to electronic contracts in Singapore - Lexology This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. 145 If the price of a product is so absurdly low in relation to its known market value, it stands to reason that a reasonable man would harbour a real suspicion that the price may not be correct or that there may be some troubling underlying basis for such a pricing. The plaintiffs were not being candid when they portrayed very limited exchanges between themselves, dealing allegedly with only the profits to be made and their ability to resell the laser printers. In some unusual circumstances where a unilateral mistake exists, the law can find a contract on terms intended by the mistaken party. 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 Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 paginator.book page 594 tuesday, november 2009 7:05 am 594 singapore law reports (reissue . Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd: A Commentary - SSRN Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] - YouTube 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]): The object of the exercise is to determine what each party intended, or must be deemed to have intended. 67 MsToh subsequently did some research on how companies which had committed similar mistakes over the Internet handled the aftermath. Articles 11 (1) Country Singapore. Contract Formation and Mistake in Cyberspace - the Singapore Experience The sixth plaintiff told his brother to order some for him, without specifying how many laser printers he wanted or how he intended to pay for the laser printers. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:24 just ordered 3 colour lazer printer for S$66.00 each. This e-mail was sent only, 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. He opted to pay for all his purchases by cash on delivery. The reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. The evidence incontrovertibly indicates that the first plaintiff himself entertained this view for the entire period he was in communication with the second and third plaintiffs. 26 I respectfully agree with the reasoning of ShawJ in Can-Dive Services Ltd v Pacific Coast Energy Corp (1995), 21CLR(2d) 39 (BCSC), where he said at 69-70 that: 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.

2x6 Vinyl Wrap, Thick Hair Ponytail Circumference, Geoffrey Lewis Children, Goat Pick Up Lines, Articles C