• Order
  • Offers
  • Support
    • Monday 30th December: 08:00 - 21:00 Tuesday 31st December: 09:00 - 13:00 Wednesday 1st January: Closed Thursday 2nd: 08:00 - 21:00 You can still place orders while we’re closed, and we’ll process them as soon as we reopen. Thank you for choosing us, and we wish you a happy and successful New Year!

      December 30, 2024

  • Sign In

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd

298 words (1 pages) Case Summary

30th Sep 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): Commonwealth law

Legal Case Brief

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502

Contract – unilateral mistake – Internet Contract – Consensus ad Idem – Meeting of the Minds – Acceptance – Offer – Void – Error

Facts

The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website. It was listed at the price of $66, when it was advertised on the official HP website for $3,854. This was not noticed by the company until over 4,000 printers were ordered. The complainants had ordered over 100 printers each at this price. When the defendants discovered this mistake on their website, they sent an email to the complainants to say they would not be fulfilling this order.

Issues

The complainants argued that they were not aware that this price was a mistake and wanted the binding contract to be fulfilled. The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled.

Decision/Outcome

It was held that the contract between the parties was void. This pricing was a mistake, which was fundamental to the contract and the complainants must have known that this ‘absurdly low’ pricing was an error by the defendants. In this case, there was no consensus ad idem or meeting of the minds between the parties, which meant that there could be no binding contract between them.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "Commonwealth law"

This selection of essays, case summaries and dissertations is of relevance to law students within the Commonwealth and for those students who are studying the Rule of Law from outside the Commonwealth .

Related Articles