If A accidentally offers to sell a laser printer for $66 instead of the correct price of 3.854 S and B to recognize the error, supposedly makes a contract with the seller to buy ten of the items that the seller will not be legally bound, but the contract will be due to the unilateral error of the seller who was known to the buyer , invalidated. This reflects the facts and the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in 2005 in the case of Chwee Kin Keong-v- Digilandmall, which was certainly not a binding precedent in that jurisdiction, but which was recognized by our High Court of Statoil -v- Louis Dreyfus Energy  EWHC 2257 (Comm). In this case, it was a request for delay beyond the contractual deadline for unloading a vessel, which was to be calculated at a rate of $40,000 per day (or pro-rata), as agreed at the time of chartering the vessel. As part of the transaction negotiations, the receiving party multiplied the $40,000 by the wrong number of days (a deficit of about 11). The paying party knew that the receptive party was wrong, and decided to remain silent; A reference amount of $103,000 was agreed. It was considered binding because the number of days is not a duration of the transaction contract. Why the different results? The explanation of the law is that, in the first case, the amount per post was a contract term and that one party erred in relation to that term that the other was aware of, so there was no agreement; in the latter case, the total amount of the contract was a contract term (i.e. the amount of the US$103,000 invoice), but the number of days on which it was calculated was not a clause (this was a fact on which the paying party had erred); Even if one party was aware of the other`s error with respect to the multiplier, this did not prevent the formation of a binding contract. The distinction between the two cases is correct. Some economic and conservative groups had called such an agreement a forgery because the union had not yet represented employees in the workplace. But if the Gen-Ys are wrong, the service level agreements suffer and the costs are enormous, while the old lessons are painfully rediscovered. For example, two business partners co-managed a business under a partnership agreement they signed some time ago. It`s bad, and someone decides to quit the partnership.
However, the length of the partnership to which they have subscribed is not yet over. If the person who wants to leave has mis-signed his or her name, can he argue that the agreement is not valid? The law assumes that people, when they enter into trade agreements, intend to commit the terms of the contract.