1.
Millennium PLC is the company which advertised in newspaper inviting “written tenders” for the supply and erection of a large marquee and any tenders reply within 14 days after the advertisement will be submitted. Back to Partridge v Crittenden (1968) case; the case was held that the defendant was not guilty, his advertisement was an invitation to treat, not an offer. As a result, the advertisement from Millennium PLC can also be seen as an invitation to treat. Similar to Spencer v Harding (1870), the defendant’s advertisement asking for tenders was only an invitation to treat. However, in that case, Willies J stated that “the invitation for tenders would have been the offer of a unilateral contract if it had gone on to say, ‘and we undertake to sell to the highest bidder’” (MacIntyre, p82). Therefore, the sentence “the lowest price to get the contract” had changed this invitation to treat to an offer of a unilateral contract. One of the tenders, who quote the lowest price in terms of the offer, has to be accepted to entitle into the contract. There were 4 tenders involved: Tents Ltd., Wigwam Ltd., Tepee Ltd. and Bigtop Ltd.
According to the first tender’s case, Tents Ltd. post a letter quoting a price of £10,000 but because the postal code was omitted from the address so the letter arrived after the deadline. The postal rule is applied here. It states that the acceptance of an offer by post is effective as soon as the letter is properly addressed and properly posted (MacIntyre, p78). Based on Adams v Lindsell (1818) case, because the defendant misdirected the letter, so when the letter of acceptance from claimant was properly posted on 5 September, the binding contract was legally made and it was impossible to call the offer off. In this case, the letter wasn’t posted properly (because of the postcode omission) and due to it arriving late the letter of acceptance was no longer valid. Millennium PLC wasn’t bounded by any contract with Tents Ltd. Tents Ltd. had no right to claim for the contract.
Tepee Ltd. is the third tender who had made the lowest quote of £8,000 and stipulated that payment be in advance. MacIntyre (p80) declares that “Acceptance of an offer must be unqualified and unconditional. A response which proposes a material alteration of the terms of the offer will amount to a counter offer. The effect of such a counter offer will be to revoke the original offer”. As in the advertisement, nothing was mentioned about advanced payment whilst Tepee Ltd.’s request had put additional condition in the contract, which means it can be seen as a counter offer. In relation to Hyde v Wrench (1840), the claimant negotiated the price to reduce from £1,000 to £950, which meant his response to the original offer had proposed a material alteration of the terms of the offer and that explained why his offer amounted to a counter offer and had revoked the defendant’s original offer. Back to Tepee Ltd.’s case, because they immediately sent the letter after seeing the advertisement so their letter is still valid within the time limit. This meant they could legally ask Millennium PLC to accept their counter offer in 14 day time. If Millennium PLC agrees with that counter offer, Tepee Ltd-the company that gave the lowest quote – can be contractually entitled to the contract.
Following is the forth tender – Bigtop Ltd. They sent a letter which arrived in time and quoted a price of “£11,000 or £500 less than the lowest price submitted, which ever is the lower “. Referring to the Haverla case (
http://www.duhaime.org ), similar to Bigtop Ltd.’s bid, Sir Leonard Outerbridge bid $2,100,000 or $100,000 in excess of any other offer and this offer had been accepted. But the case was held that Sir Leonard Outerbridge’s bid was a referential bid and the trial judge gave judgment for Harvela. The trial stated that constituting a fixed bidding sale was necessary upon its true construction, for this reason Sir Leonard was not entitled to submit and the vendors were not entitled to accept a referential bid. Consequently, Bigtop Ltd’s bid is also a referential bid, they didn’t form a fixed bidding price then Millennium PLC shouldn’t accept them.
Finally, the second tender Wigwam Ltd. has to be considered. They faxed a reply with a price of £9,000 (fax letter still can be considered as “written tender”). We can see that Wigwam Ltd. gave the second lowest quote of £9,000, higher than the lowest one of £8,000 from Tepee Ltd. Besides, their quote was still applicable within the time bound and didn’t ask for any further conditions. As a result, Wigwam Ltd. could be accepted within the terms of the contract.
In summary, after considering four tender’s cases, the best advice for Millennium PLC would be Tepee Ltd., in case if they could manage to pay in advance for Tepee Ltd. Although Tepee Ltd. asked for additional condition but they had the lowest quote among four tenders, less than the second lowest quote by up to £1,000 and meanwhile Tents Ltd. exceeded the time limit and Bigtop Ltd.was a referential bid. However, if Millennium PLC couldn’t handle the payment in advance, Wigwam Ltd. should be the best option for them with reasonable price and time legalization.
2.
Definition of and some distinctions between: (from MacIntyre, p7)
i) Terry sues Daley Motors claiming £3,000 damages for the sale to him of a defective motor car. In this case, Terry (the claimant) is claiming to get the compensation due to a loss from a defective car, which was bought from Daley Motors (the defendant) so it can be seen as a civil offence. Moreover, this case would be heard by the county court because the amount claimed is £3,000 only (not sufficient enough to be heard by higher court)
ii) Similar to some extent with the case above Terry v Daley Motors, Alf is suing his employer Skimpy Ltd. for damages following an accident at work caused by defective equipment, it means the claimant is requiring a compensation for the injury from wrongs committed by the defendant therefore this is a civil offence. However, failure to observe health and safety provisions of Skimpy Ltd. would also be connected with criminal offence because it is the wrongs against the society. In summary, this case constitutes both Civil and Criminal wrongs. Thus on the one hand, the claiming for personal injuries amounts to £50,000 is a large sum of money then it should be heard by High Court and on the other hand, the State would prosecute Skimpy Ltd. for breaking Health and Safety law in Magistrates’ court. If more serious, this case could be held in higher court, even Court of Appeal.
iii) Joe is charged with the theft of £50 from the bank for which he works. This is the wrong that a person diddles society to get things that doesn’t belong to him, which means against the society, thus this fraudulent offence can be seen as a criminal offence (as said by the definition above). Besides, the theft of £50 is not a big amount of money hence by reason of that unserious ness; it would be heard by Magistrates’ court.
iv) Hamilton P.L.C is charged with offences relating to non-payment of large sums of tax to H.M Customs. Paying tax for government is the responsibility of each individual and each business when they made profit, so the offence relating to non-payment of large sums of tax by Hamilton P.L.C can be seen as fraudulent wrongs against the government, against the society. As the result, this is a criminal offence. Moreover, due to the significance of large sums unpaid, this case would be first held by Crown court or even Court of Appeal (Criminal divisions) if more serious.
v) Fiona wishes to claim compensation from her employer because her contract of employment has been terminated without notice. This is the case of a person who has been caused loss (stop working, no more income) by the wrongful act of other individuals and this person is trying to claim for the compensation. Based on the definition of civil law stated on top, it can be seen obviously as a civil offence and should be first held in county court, if more serious, it can be heard by High Court.
References:
Edwan MacIntyre, Business Law, 2nd edition, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2005
http://www.duhaime.org/contract/ca-con4.aspx (Harvela case)
FOUNDATION OF LAW COURSEWORK 2005/6
TRAN HUYEN TRANG (N0132692)