It's assignment done as part of academic assessment in Business Law subject of MBA.

1. BUSINESS LAW CASE
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
E.Prasanth
First Year MBA
Dept of Management Studies
Pondicherry University

2. Performance of Contract
Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd
[2005] SGCA 2
Facts of case:
1. This case deals with web based contract.
2. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet
in Singapore.
3. The HP laser printer was advertised on the Defendant’s
website and on the website of HP for $3,854.
4. Due to the mistake on part of one of the employee of a
related company, the price of printer was altered to $66 on
the website, which was not noticed by any of the employee.
5. The Appellants (there were six appellants) discovered this
price and ordered more than 100 printers each. The
Company on discovering the mistake rectified it and sent an
e-mail stating that it will not complete this order.

3. QUESTIONS
1. What kind of mistake is done here by defendant?
2. Is the contract valid?
3. Can consensus ad idem be claimed here?
(Consensus ad idem: The Latin term consensus ad
idem, an “agreement of the minds,” is used to describe
a situation where people fully understand a contract
and their role in it. Consensus or agreement on a
contract is considered a necessary condition of a valid
contract in many legal systems, under the argument
that people who are not aware of or do not understand
a contract cannot be held responsible for it.)
4. To whom the judgment favored and what is the reason
for it?

4. ANSWERS
1. There are three categories of mistake, namely, common, mutual and
unilateral mistakes. In a common mistake, both parties make the same
mistake. In a mutual mistake, both parties misunderstand each other
and are at cross-purposes. In a unilateral mistake, only one of the
parties makes a mistake and the other party knows of his mistake. For
the purpose of the present proceedings, we are only concerned with
the effect of a unilateral mistake. It’s a unilateral mistake.
2. There is a mistake related to the fundamental terms of the contract,
the contract was held void under the common law.
3. The element of consensus ad idem cannot be claimed by the
party(who is aware of such mistake) against the other party (who has
committed such a mistake). This is an exception to the general rule
which states that a party is bound to the contract even though a
mistake may have been committed by it while entering into the
contract.
4. The judgment favored defendant because the Court held that (also
considering the background of the appellants) that they had a
constructive knowledge about the mistake in the pricing of the
product.

5. Reference
1.https://indiancontractlaw.wordpress.com/2014/08/
07/chwee-kin-keong-v-digilandmall-com-pte-ltd/
2.http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/landmark/%5
B2005%5D_SGCA_2.html
3.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-consensus-ad-
idem.htm
THANK YOU