Law in Relation

First and foremost, the main question here is whether Aidan should be entitled to enforce the contract or not. To answer this question, the case law of Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 71 has been referred.

In Aidan’s and friend’s case, there are three essential elements of contracts which invalidate the contract. They are either caused either by the plaintiff or the defendant which includes the disagreement of one party by the defendant, the absence of Intention to create legal relations by the plaintiff and the most dominating element in this case is the absence of vitiating factors which is the Unilateral mistake which therefore, invalidate the contract. These aspects will be further elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Generally, a contract is a legally binding agreement which is consisting of a set of promises which will be enforced by law. This agreement will create rights and obligations that are enforceable in courts. Furthermore, a contract occurs when “the offeree” has accepted the “offeror’s” offer. An offer can be either accepted or rejected. If the offer is accepted, an agreement is immediately formed and thus, both parties achieve “consensus ad idem”. This can only occur when the parties agrees to the terms and conditions. When the offer is made, all the other person has to do is say ‘yes’ to bind himself and more importantly, the offer made should be clear, certain as well as unambiguous.

However, there is one important exception to this principle. If the offeree knows that the offeror does not have any intentions on the terms of the offer to be those that the natural meaning of the words would suggest, he cannot bind the offeror to a contract by claiming to accept the offer, Furthermore, in Aidan’s and friends’ case, the plaintiffs knew that the defendant is mistaken and despite this, they still tried to form an agreement. In this case, there is no meeting of minds which means the agreement cannot be enforced. This statement is further supported by Section 22 of the Contract Act (Pathak, 2010). Pathak clearly added that “A contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact”.

Aidan knew that the 3D Printer was worth more than $69 and should have realized that the offer did not reflect the true intention of the company accessories distributor which is LongNet. His immediate response to the company’s advertisement exhibited the characteristics of “Snapping up”. Snapping Up means that when the party knows that the other person or in this case, the company is mistaken and still forms an agreement. Furthermore, in reference of the Digilandmall case, it was even more surprising when we see the background of the Plaintiffs which can be summarized as highly educated as well as having the extensive knowledge and experience