In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd ,1 one of the defendant’s employees mistakenly uploaded the contents of a training template onto the defendant’s website, resulting in the retail price of S$3,854 for a commercial laser printer on the website being replaced with the figure S$66. Before the error was detected and corrected, some 784 individuals had placed orders for more than 4,000 printers. Amongst these 784 were the six plaintiffs, who between them ordered 1,606 printers. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the contracts when the defendant refused to honour the sales at the mistaken price. The defendant resisted the action primarily on the basis that the price reflected a unilateral mistake on its part of which the plaintiffs were aware. The plaintiffs sought to address this plea in two ways. First, they unanimously denied any knowledge whatsoever that the defendant had been mistaken as to the price.2 Secondly, they argued that, even if they had been aware of the mistake, the contracts should not be void at common law but only voidable in equity and that, since the defendant had failed to plead rescission in equity, the plea of unilateral mistake was ineffectual.3 The plaintiffs’ action failed at first instance before the Singapore High Court, which held that the contract was void at common law, as the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known that the defendant was mistaken as to a fundamental term of the contract.4 The High Court held that equity had no role to play in cases of unilateral mistake both because its foundation in Solle v. Butcher 5 is misguided

---

424