Introduction 介绍
This essay examines whether a binding contract exists between Amy and Antique World, an online retailer in Hong Kong, following a pricing error on their website. In early August 2025, Antique World advertised an antique chest of drawers for HKD 2,100 instead of the intended HKD 21,000. Amy placed an order at the erroneous price and received an automated confirmation email, only to be later informed by Antique World that they would not fulfill the order due to the mistake. This analysis will assess the legal principles of contract formation under Hong Kong law, focusing on offer, acceptance, consideration, and the impact of Antique World’s Terms and Conditions. The essay will argue that a binding contract may not exist, primarily due to the lack of a clear intention to create legal relations at the incorrect price.
本文研究了艾米和香港在线零售商 Antique World 之间是否存在具有约束力的合同，因为他们的网站上出现了定价错误。2025 年 8 月初，古董世界以 2,100 港元的价格宣传了一款古董抽屉柜，而不是原定的 21,000 港元。Amy 以错误的价格下订单并收到一封自动确认电子邮件，后来 Antique World 通知他们由于错误而无法履行订单。本分析将评估香港法律下合同订立的法律原则，重点关注要约、接受、对价以及 Antique World 条款和条件的影响。本文将论证具有约束力的合同可能不存在，主要是因为缺乏以不正确价格建立法律关系的明确意图。
Legal Principles of Contract Formation
合同订立的法律原则
Under Hong Kong contract law, a binding contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations (Beatson et al., 2016). An offer is a clear expression of willingness by one party to enter into a contract on specified terms, while acceptance must be an unequivocal agreement to those terms. In the context of online transactions, advertisements on websites are generally considered invitations to treat rather than offers, meaning they invite potential customers to make an offer to purchase (Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204). Therefore, when Amy placed her order, she arguably made an offer to buy the chest of drawers at HKD 2,100, which Antique World could accept or reject.
根据香港合同法，具有约束力的合同需要要约、接受、对价和建立法律关系的意图（Beatson et al.， 2016）。要约是一方愿意按特定条款签订合同的明确表达，而接受必须是对这些条款的明确同意。在网上交易中，网站上的广告通常被视为邀请款待而不是要约，这意味着它们邀请潜在客户提出购买要约（Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204）。因此，当 Amy 下单时，她可以说以 2,100 港元的价格购买抽屉柜，古董世界可以接受或拒绝。
However, the automated confirmation email Amy received complicates this analysis. Such emails are often seen as acknowledgments of receipt rather than formal acceptance, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the retailer’s terms (Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502). Without access to the specific wording of Antique World’s email, it is difficult to determine whether it constituted acceptance. Generally, acceptance in e-commerce occurs when the seller dispatches the goods or confirms the order explicitly, neither of which happened here.
然而，艾米收到的自动确认电子邮件使这一分析变得复杂。除非零售商的条款另有明确说明，否则此类电子邮件通常被视为收到确认而不是正式接受（Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR（R） 502）。如果无法访问 Antique World 电子邮件的具体措辞，很难确定它是否构成接受。一般来说，电子商务中的验收发生在卖家发货或明确确认订单时，而这里都没有发生。
Impact of Pricing Errors and Terms and Conditions
定价错误和条款和条件的影响
Pricing errors in online transactions raise further issues. Courts in Hong Kong have recognized that obvious mistakes in pricing may not bind the seller if the error is so significant that a reasonable person would recognize it as a mistake (Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566). The discrepancy between HKD 2,100 and HKD 21,000 is substantial, and it could be argued that Amy should have questioned the “special deal!” pricing. Furthermore, Antique World’s Terms and Conditions, which Amy agreed to by clicking the relevant box, reserve the right to alter prices in exceptional circumstances. While Amy did not read these terms, under Hong Kong law, she is typically bound by them once agreed, provided they are reasonably accessible (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163).
在线交易中的定价错误引发了进一步的问题。香港法院已经承认，如果定价上的明显错误严重到一个合理的人会认为这是一个错误，则该错误可能不会对卖方具有约束力（Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566）。2,100 港元和 21,000 港元之间的差异很大，可以说 Amy 应该质疑“特价！此外，Amy 通过单击相关框同意的 Antique World 条款和条件保留在特殊情况下更改价格的权利。虽然 Amy 没有阅读这些条款，但根据香港法律，只要这些条款是合理可访问的，她通常会在同意后受其约束（Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163）。
Indeed, the inclusion of such clauses often protects retailers from fulfilling orders based on errors. Therefore, even if Amy’s order and the automated email were deemed to constitute offer and acceptance, Antique World’s terms likely allow them to rescind the transaction due to the pricing mistake.
事实上，包含此类条款通常可以保护零售商免于因错误而履行订单。因此，即使 Amy 的订单和自动电子邮件被视为构成要约和接受，Antique World 的条款也可能允许他们因定价错误而撤销交易。
Conclusion 结论
In conclusion, it is unlikely that a binding contract exists between Amy and Antique World. The advertisement was an invitation to treat, and the automated email may not constitute acceptance. Moreover, the significant pricing error and the protective Terms and Conditions further undermine Amy’s claim, as Antique World reserved the right to alter prices. While Amy may feel aggrieved, Hong Kong contract law prioritizes the intention to create legal relations based on reasonable terms. This case highlights the importance of clarity in online transactions and the need for consumers to be aware of terms they agree to. Amy’s recourse may lie in negotiation rather than legal action, as the law appears to favor Antique World in this scenario.
总之，艾米和古董世界之间不太可能存在具有约束力的合同。该广告是治疗邀请，自动电子邮件可能不构成接受。此外，重大的定价错误以及保护性条款和条件进一步削弱了 Amy 的主张，因为 Antique World 保留更改价格的权利。虽然艾米可能会感到委屈，但香港合同法优先考虑在合理条款基础上建立法律关系的意图。这个案例凸显了在线交易清晰度的重要性，以及消费者了解他们同意的条款的必要性。艾米的追索权可能在于谈判而不是法律行动，因为在这种情况下，法律似乎有利于古董世界。
References 引用
- Beatson, J., Burrows, A., and Cartwright, J. (2016) Anson’s Law of Contract. 30th ed. Oxford University Press.
Beatson， J.、Burrows， A. 和 Cartwright， J. （2016） 安森合同法则。第 30 版牛津大学出版社。 - Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502.
Chwee Kin Keong 诉 Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR（R） 502。 - Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566.
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566。 - Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 一案中。 - Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163.
Thornton 诉 Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163。
