Online Pricing Mistakes

Chwee Kin Keong and Ors. v.

Digilandmall.com Ltd.
Group B-2
9th July, 2018
The case where a person, realising the mistake of the other, gets into a
contract to take advantage of the mistake, is known as “snapping up”

Offeree’s Actual
Intention

Offeree’s Mistake
2
 Digilandmall.com was a company that sold IT products over the
Internet to customers
1
Site to sell only HP products

2
Digilandmall.com Ltd. Own website to sell products of
different brands
3
Related entity website to sell to
corporate clients and re-sellers

Call to advise delivery

Consumer Website Checkout
date and time
3
A Digiland training session gone awry presents a remarkable arbitrage
opportunity – and the six plaintiffs represented purchased in bulk

“Suppose the sample price

for HP9660A is 66…”

Price of HP9660A Chwee Kin Keong

 Personally purchased 100
printers
3854 66  Sent an email to 54 friends
and business associates
informing them of the deal

Training session at Significant arbitrage “I do not know if this is an

Digiland premises opportunity! error or whether HP will
honour this purchase. No
January 8, 2003 harm trying right?”
4
 Contentions offered by both parties were rejected by the court in its
judgement

Contention offered to court Judgement offered by court

1
Enquiry was only post-contract
Digiland: Acceptance was only
to work out a convenient time for
tentative
delivering the goods

2
The contract is not genuine and
Chwee and Ors.: A genuine contract
is a case of predatory pack
must be honoured
hunting

5
“What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will
incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors”

1
What is objectively and subjectively
known
2
Magnitude of the transaction
“Snapping up”
3
Circumstances in which the orders
are placed
4
Whether any unusual factors are
apparent

6
“What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will
incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors”

1
What is objectively and subjectively
known

 In “mass mistake” cases, the Court

can pragmatically assume actual or
“Snapping up” deemed knowledge of the mistake
 “…by exercising reasonable care,
the true facts ought to be known”
 “It is improper for a party who
knows...of a manifest error to seek
commercial benefit from such an
error”
7
“What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will
incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors”
 1936 orders placed by the six
plaintiffs, of a total of 4086 orders,
seeking to commercially benefit from
an error
2
Magnitude of the transaction
“Snapping up”
3
Circumstances in which the orders
are placed

 Multiple orders placed with

“indecent haste in the dead of the
night”
8
“What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will
incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors”

 Cryptically worded but highly

significant mass e-mail wishing all
the recipients “good luck”
 No prior experience of conducting
business in printers
 “Mere fact that they suddenly
“Snapping up” engage in predatory and atypical
behaviour is telling”

4
Whether any unusual factors are
apparent

9
 On balance, the Court reviews and dismisses the plaintiff’s claims,
providing a landmark judgement in the field of online pricing mistakes

Claims are “audacious,

opportunistic, and contrived”

Plaintiffs had no If prices are

valid reason for absurdly low, a
Not a case about
purchase of high- reasonable man
bargain hunting
end commercial must harbour real
laser printers suspicion

In summary, the plaintiff’s claims “cannot by any stretch of imagination

be characterised as having the slightest colour of being legitimate”
10