blackpool and fydle

• The defendant was a local authority who owned an airport.
• In 1975, the defendant granted the claimants a concession which allowed them to operate leisure flights out of the airport.
• In 1983, discussions began on renewing the concession.
• The defendant put the concession up for tender.
• The tender invitations, which were sent to the claimant and six others, stated that the defendant did not bind themselves to accept any particular tender.
• The invitation also stated that tenders not delivered by a particular date would be invalid.
• The claimant posted their tender personally in the defendant’s letterbox before the deadline.
• The defendant’s staff failed to empty the letterbox until after the deadline had passed.
• The defendant accepted another person’s tender.
• The claimant sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligence.
• The claimant argued that the defendant had a duty (either in contract, tort or both) to properly consider all tenders which met the invitation criteria.
• The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendant.
• The invitation and submission of tenders created a collateral contract requiring the defendant to duly consider all tenders properly matching the criteria.
• The defendant had failed to do this, so he was in breach.
• Invitations for tenders are normally invitations to treat, not offers.
• Therefore, defendants are not obliged to accept any particular tender.
• Invitations for tenders may give rise to a collateral contract which requires the defendant to properly consider all tenders submitted in accordance with the invitation.
• This turns on whether a reasonable observer would think it obvious that the defendant could not accept a tender before they had considered all valid submissions.
• The proposed contract terms are not open to negotiation.
• The defendant was a local authority who owned an airport.
• In 1975, the defendant granted the claimants a concession which allowed them to operate leisure flights out of the airport.
• In 1983, discussions began on renewing the concession.
• The defendant put the concession up for tender.
• The tender invitations, which were sent to the claimant and six others, stated that the defendant did not bind themselves to accept any particular tender.
• The invitation also stated that tenders not delivered by a particular date would be invalid.
• The claimant posted their tender personally in the defendant’s letterbox before the deadline.
• The defendant’s staff failed to empty the letterbox until after the deadline had passed.
• The defendant accepted another person’s tender.
• The claimant sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligence.
• The claimant argued that the defendant had a duty (either in contract, tort or both) to properly consider all tenders which met the invitation criteria.
• The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendant.
• The invitation and submission of tenders created a collateral contract requiring the defendant to duly consider all tenders properly matching the criteria.
• The defendant had failed to do this, so he was in breach.