This involved two potential contracts: a unilateral, ‘process’ contract followed by a bilateral, binding agreement. An offer of a unilateral, process contract was sent to the three contractors by MML. To accept the offer, they are required to submit a tender and pay a $100 administration fee to be considered for the contract to paint Eastfield plaza. In this process contract, if accepted by the contractors, MML would have an obligation to accept the lowest-priced tender that complied with the terms of the tender process and be obliged to enter into a bilateral contract with them. These terms include the tenders being treated as confidential, the tender needing to be received by the 24th February at 5pm along with the aforementioned admin fee.
…show more content…
Subsequently, the offeree would be unable to accept and be bound by the tender. Since Paints-R-Us responded with a tender of ‘$50 000 below the lowest-priced tender received by [MML],’ MML would be unable to be bound to accept their tender, even though the tender itself was submitted with the administration fee and within the given time i.e. appearing to comply with the terms of the tender process. The terms of the tender were such that they were to be treated as confidential and that MML would be bound to the ‘lowest-priced complying tender.’ From this, it would appear that the tender submitted by Paints-R-Us was inconsistent with the terms set out in the process contract and thus, Paints-R-Us breached the unilateral contract disallowing MML to fulfil its obligation to the process contract and the other …show more content…
Their tender of $500 000, was sent with the administration fee and within the date required. The ‘postal acceptance’ rule denotes that as soon as it is sent, the acceptance of the offer is complete (Henthorn v Fraser). Therefore, through the posting of their tender - that complied with MML’s terms - they accepted MML’s unilateral contract as soon as it was sent. Resultantly, Rainbow submitted an offer to MML to paint Eastfield plaza for $500 000. However, the postal rule does not apply to the withdrawal of an offer and until it is actually communicated to the offeree, the withdrawal of an offer has no effect (Byrne v Van Tiehoven). Rainbow changed their mind about their tender and as a result, they attempted to, through fax, withdraw their offer. Even though their fax was sent during business hours, it went unnoticed within MML’s offices for three days, therefore placing the time in which the withdrawn reached MML being after the 24th February. Therefore, at 5pm on the close of tender, Rainbow had submitted a valid tender to MML. Therefore, due to other circumstances rendering Paints-R-Us and Colour Craft’s tenders void, MML has an obligation to accept Rainbow’s offer as it was the lowest-priced complying
Subsequently, the offeree would be unable to accept and be bound by the tender. Since Paints-R-Us responded with a tender of ‘$50 000 below the lowest-priced tender received by [MML],’ MML would be unable to be bound to accept their tender, even though the tender itself was submitted with the administration fee and within the given time i.e. appearing to comply with the terms of the tender process. The terms of the tender were such that they were to be treated as confidential and that MML would be bound to the ‘lowest-priced complying tender.’ From this, it would appear that the tender submitted by Paints-R-Us was inconsistent with the terms set out in the process contract and thus, Paints-R-Us breached the unilateral contract disallowing MML to fulfil its obligation to the process contract and the other …show more content…
Their tender of $500 000, was sent with the administration fee and within the date required. The ‘postal acceptance’ rule denotes that as soon as it is sent, the acceptance of the offer is complete (Henthorn v Fraser). Therefore, through the posting of their tender - that complied with MML’s terms - they accepted MML’s unilateral contract as soon as it was sent. Resultantly, Rainbow submitted an offer to MML to paint Eastfield plaza for $500 000. However, the postal rule does not apply to the withdrawal of an offer and until it is actually communicated to the offeree, the withdrawal of an offer has no effect (Byrne v Van Tiehoven). Rainbow changed their mind about their tender and as a result, they attempted to, through fax, withdraw their offer. Even though their fax was sent during business hours, it went unnoticed within MML’s offices for three days, therefore placing the time in which the withdrawn reached MML being after the 24th February. Therefore, at 5pm on the close of tender, Rainbow had submitted a valid tender to MML. Therefore, due to other circumstances rendering Paints-R-Us and Colour Craft’s tenders void, MML has an obligation to accept Rainbow’s offer as it was the lowest-priced complying