This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

#9046 - Tenders And Bids - Contracts Law

Notice: PDF Preview
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contracts Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting.
See Original

THEME 8: TENDERS AND BIDS

Traditionally, a call for tenders may be communicated by way of advertisement to the public or it can be an invitation to a specific group of companies made in a private manner. Under the traditional analysis, a tender is treated as an invitation to treat because a contractor chooses to send in a bid by way of a quotation.

Unless the initial invitation indicates that the lowest bid will be chosen, any decision can be made to choose the best bid based on economic principles. If there is a communication indicating that the call will choose the highest or lowest bid, there is said

to be an offer because the company is creating specificity (Harvala rule). Traditionally,

the bidder is only bound by an offer it makes when it’s accepted, so the offer of a bid can be withdrawn before acceptance. With Ron Engineering (SCC), policy seems to change this traditional rule such that offers cannot be withdrawn before acceptance because it would undermine the integrity of the tender system. The court says that in some cases, the formal tendering process may create a preliminary contract (A) such that the call was made as a unilateral offer. This is not always the case. The idea in Ron is that the caller needs to know that the call remains valid so the system remains fair. It remains unclear whether the caller must accept the best offer. We must look at business efficacy reasons to determine if the call is slanted in favour of the caller. The cases below demonstrate circumstances with a difference in the intention with the call.

CASE RULE FACTS REASONS

Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada [1986]

HIGHEST BID

I: Is this a fixed bidding or auction?

D: Fixed bidding, appeal allowed

The provisions of an invitation to treat can either be a fixed bidding or a referential bid. This depends on the wording of the invitation to treat. A fixed bidding outlines that venders will accept X offer.

- vendor requesting Sir Leonard and Harvela to bid

- offers to be sent via telex confidentially – closed at 3 pm

- would accept highest bid

- Harvela offered 2.175 million, but Leonard said 2.1 or 101 in excess of another bid that’s a fixed amount, whichever higher

- at trial, court ruled in favour of PL

- you can adjust your bid with an auction, but not with fixed bidding

- invitation was fixed bidding because it was confidential and they indicated that they’d accept the highest bid

- vendors not entitled to accept Leonard’s bid

- vendors should specify form of auction – their intention shows fixed bidding (Reasonable person test was used to decide this

R v Ron Engineering & Construction Eastern Ltd [1981] SCR

GOVT TENDER

I: Was PL bound by rules in tendering?

D: YES; deposit unrecoverable

Contract A (sending offer for tender) creates obligations for contractor. A bid is irrevocable if it’s filed in conformity with the conditions under which the call for tenders was made, if the conditions so provide.

- contractor submitted tender for 2.7 million w deposit cheque of 150 000 as per condition of tender

-language said 1)bids need deposit 2)bids irrevocable after deadline

3) successful bidder required to create contract of project within 7 days of notification of win

- para 13 says condition may retain deposit if they choose not to accept offer

- submission made once before deadline and once

after when it realized someone bid higher

- DF’s call was invitation to treat

- SCC disagrees that there was no contract until accepted (PL argued it could to revoke offer because there was no acceptance (process should be fair)

- cannot recover deposit because contractor didn’t abide by the conditions of Contract A

COMMENTARY ON WESTERN MUTUAL BENEFIT: A corporation is considered a legal entity in this case so contractual law still applies. In the cause of a municipal resolution, the law of enforceable contract does not necessarily apply because it can be amended or rescinded at any time and is seen as little more than a political promise.

FRAMEWORK EMERGING FROM SCC IN RON

Phases Contract A Contract B
Call for tenders offer Invitation to treat
Sub contractors acceptance offer
Reward none acceptance

*ONLY one bidder wins A, and then B.

A is bidding process, and B is carrying out of contract.

Two contracts can be formed in tendering process:

  • A) Under contract A, call for tenders is actually an offer to start fair tendering process and the submission of a tender is acceptance

    • Obligations under contract A – parties are required to abide by terms of contest

    • Party calling for tenders is called to fairly select best bid

    • Parties submitting bids are prohibited from revoking offers

    • There is no reward here because it ends after acceptance of the offer

  • B) Call for bid is invitation to treat. Bid constitutes the offer. There will be one contract B when bids are submitted, after all As are submitted

    • Submission of tenders is offer, and selection is acceptance

    • Acceptance is the reward

TENDER RULE:

A statement of invitation to tender is seen as an invitation to treat, rather than an offer. A contract is made when the person who submitted the invitation to tender accepts a tender that’s been submitted (provides acceptance). The rules in invitation to tender can also create binding obligations on owner, and not just the bidder who is sending in a tender. Although that is the case, invitations to tender still give companies the ability to retain...

Unlock the full document,
purchase it now!
Contracts Law
Target a first in law with Oxbridge