Curtin University Dubai

School of Science and Engineering

BLAW 2000 - Law for Engineers

Major Assignment

Student Name: Keerthana Dana Sekaran

Student Number: 19939889
Date of Submission: 30.10.2022
Table of Contents

Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Scenario 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
References ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

2
Scenario 1

Step 1: Area of Law

This scenario covers the review of tenders and the contractual status of tender applications. So, contract law
will be the subject of the law.

Step 2: Principles of Law

A tender is when a party posts an advertisement for a task that has to be completed, a good they want to buy,
or a service they require. "Call for tenders" is the term used for this. Regardless of which offer is the cheapest
or of the best quality, etc., the person who requested the tenders will choose one of them. There are situations
when none of the bids are accepted. A party may use advertising to demand the provision of a specified range
of goods or services. In this form of tender, the trader offers to deliver the products or services in exchange
for a certain fee. A contract is created if the company accepts this tender as an offer. The company is in
violation if it refuses to accept or pay for the items.

When a tender is requested, it serves as an invitation to treat, and one of the tenders will be chosen. A party
requesting bids is not required to accept a bid at all costs. Use of the word "offer" should only be interpreted
as an invitation to treat, akin to the Spencer v. Harding case, rather than as a commitment made by the caller.
Even though the advertisement uses the word "offer," the court declared that it is simply an invitation to treat
because it does not specify whether the highest or lowest bidder will be chosen.

A company could occasionally request bids for certain items. In other circumstances, the tender's wording
might be more specific or contractual, converting the request for tenders into an offer rather than a plea for
goodwill. When someone asks a tender and says that they "will accept the lowest bid" or "the best pricing,"
that is an example of an offer. This means that whoever makes the lowest bid or best price has accepted the
offer and entered into a binding agreement. In the 1986 case of Harvela Investments Ltd. v. Royal Trust Co. of
Canada Ltd., we may see a similar circumstance. It was made very clear that the caller would accept and be
bound by the highest offer made.

Notices to Tenderers, Conditions of Tendering, Tender Forms and Schedules, the applicable General
Conditions of the Contract, Drawings, Specifications, and Additional Information are some of the papers that
are routinely issued for calling tenders (Bailey, 2011). All submitted tenders shall comply in all material
respects with the terms of the tendering. Before the caller accepts a bid, the tenderer has the right to withdraw
or cancel it, provided that no attempt has been made to keep the bid alive. The withdrawal is only taken into
account to be legitimate if it has been notified to the caller. The tenderer's right to revoke may be subject to
a variety of limitations. The security deposit could be forfeited in accordance with the tendering regulations if
a tender is withdrawn before a certain deadline (Bailey, 2011:103).

An unconditional tender acceptance is required. If the owner tries to impose any conditions, the acceptance
can be seen as a counteroffer.

3
Any acceptance including the words "subject to contract" or otherwise indicating that the parties have not yet
agreed upon the material terms is not binding. Pre-contractual processes are sometimes included in tenders,
which means the caller is requesting that tenders be filed in a certain manner and will be evaluated in
accordance with those requirements. For instance, it might contain specific details, engineering drawings, etc.
In these situations, the applications must be evaluated in light of the implicit terms and conditions.

Collateral contracts would be broken if the bids weren't examined properly. Tenderers may request
reimbursement for the expenses incurred in creating this particular form of tender as a result of the breach.

Step 3: Application to Facts

To determine the contractual status of each tender received, the conditions of the tendering must be first
evaluated. The tender advertisement was posted by Moltisanti Property Developers Pty Ltd, and it does not
contain information such as the criteria for selection. The only requirement was tender should be submitted
before the close of business on 1 February 2022.

Below is the contractual status of each tender:

Dante Builders Pty Ltd submitted the first tender however their tender was not evaluated due to the
misplacement and the company’s lack of procedure in place for receiving the tenders. Call of tender is an
invitation to treat and received tenders must be evaluated by Moltisanti Property Developers Pty Ltd. The only
condition to tender was the deadline for submission and Dante Builders Pty Ltd comply with this requirement.
Since a tender is sent to the Moltisanti Property Developers Pty Ltd by the Dante Builders Pty Ltd there is an
intention to create legal relations. Hence, there is a breach of the contract. Dante Builders can sue Moltisanti
Property Developers Pty Ltd for not evaluating the tender. Moltisanti Property Developers Pty Ltd should
evaluate the tender and announce the decision for the project but is not obliged to pick Dante builders
necessarily.

Leotardo Solutions Pty Ltd submitted its tender by hand early on 1 February and it was the lowest offer.
Leotardo solutions are claiming that it has the lowest bid, and the tender must have been considered.
Leotardo Solutions Pty Ltd submitted the tender before the deadline mentioned to Moltisanti Property
Developers Pty Ltd. Hence, there is an intention to create legal relations. According to the Spencer v. Harding
(1870) case, the defendants issued an advertising that said, "We are instructed to offer for sale by tender the
stock in the trade-off." In response to the highest tender not being accepted, the plaintiff brought a claim for
contract violation. The issue was whether or whether the request for bids met the requirements of an offer,
opening the door for the highest bid to be accepted. The offer to treat was ruled by the court to have been
included in the request for bids. Furthermore, the advertisement did not specify whether the highest or lowest
tender would be approved. No promises were made in the request for bids. The plaintiff's rejected offer was
the only thing that was available. Thus, all that was present was the plaintiff's rejected offer. Similarly, we can
take this case for the relationship between Leotardo Solutions Pty Ltd and Moltisanti Property Developers Pty
Ltd. There is no breach of contract between the above parties.

The tender from Parisi Bros Construction Ltd. was placed on January 27 and came in at 2:00 pm on February
1. The tender represented the best offer. Parisi Bros's tender is the one that Moltisanti Property Developers
wish to choose, but Parisi Bros changed its mind about the project and withdrew its tender in a letter. After
February 15th, the letter was received by Moltisanti Property Developers.

4
Submissions must precisely adhere to the tendering requirements, and in this case, both parties intended to
establish a legal relationship. A tenderer has the authority to withdraw or revoke a bid before the caller accepts
it, provided that no thought has been made to keeping the bid alive. However, once the results were
announced and the caller had accepted the offer, Parisi Bros withdrew their application. Only if it has been
disclosed to the caller is the withdrawal considered genuine. A number of restrictions may be placed on the
tenderer's ability to withdraw. According to the rules of tendering, the security deposit may be lost if a tender
is withdrawn within a certain amount of time (Bailey, 2011:103). The security deposit may also be lost in this
case if Parisi Bros. changes its mind after accepting the proposal.

Bacala Builders said that because their bid was submitted on February 1st, it should have been taken into
consideration. On February 1, Bacala Builders posted his tender, and on February 3, it was received. There is
an aim to establish legal relations because Moltisanti Property Developers received a bid from Bacala Builders.
Tenders must be submitted in complete compliance with the format and detailed requirements of the
tendering conditions. If a tender violates strict standards even slightly, it may be rejected. A one-minute late
offer was deemed inappropriate since doing so would have broken the "bid contract" in Smith & Wilson v.
British Columbia Hydro Authority (1997) 33 C.L.R (2nd) 64. (Bailey, 2011). Hence there is a breach of the bid
contract between Bacala Builders and Moltisanti Property Developers.

Step 4: Conclusion
The application of Dante Builders must be evaluated, and the decision on the tender must be made
accordingly. Even though Parisi bros have the highest bid, the offer cannot be demanded from the party.
However, if they wish to revoke, the deposit could be forfeited due to withdrawal after the acceptance. Bacala
builders and Leotardo solutions tenders can be rejected.

5
Scenario 2

Step 1: Area of Law

To ascertain whether Sacramoni Mechanical Engineering Company Pty Ltd and the Mechanical Engineers
Association have a binding agreement in place. So, contract law will be the subject of the law. Its foundation
is common law.

Step 2: Principles of Law

A contract is a binding legal arrangement between two or more parties that one side may enforce against the
other.

Formal and informal contracts are the two varieties of contracts. Formal contracts are written agreements
that are signed by the parties, a witness, and a third party. When the law requires it or the parties want a
written record of their agreement, this more "serious" sort of contract—also known as a "deed" or a contract
"under seal"—is utilized (or both). Simpler agreements are more common. They need not be expressed in
writing; they may be expressed verbally, in writing, by behavior, or by any combination of these. There are
some contracts that must be in writing and some that do not. Written agreements include bills of exchange,
transfers, promissory notes, etc.

Other plain-text contracts might not be upheld in the absence of explicit documentation of their terms. The
precedent for this was Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds (1677) (U.K.), which Western Australia enacted as
law in 1829. The agreement being sued on, or "any memorandum or note thereof," "must be in writing and
signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully empowered,"
according to sections 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA) and the Statute of Frauds 1677 (U.K.). If the
requirements for writing are not met, the contract is not voidable, but it also cannot be enforced. These are
the six requirements of the contract,

The desire to establish legal relations, Agreement between the parties, consideration, legal competence, and
genuine consent are all required and Objects' Legality.

The first requirement that must be established in order for a contract to be valid is the desire to establish
legal relations. Even after an offer that seems to be legal has been accepted and the other conditions have
been satisfied, there may not actually be a contract. A necessary element, the legal duty can only exist if the
parties intended for their agreement to have legal ramifications. These are the presumptions made by the
court in connection to this.

• Domestic and social contracts are not intended to be legally binding.

• Contracts covering business and commercial matters do intend to be legally enforceable.

The Edwards v. Skyways case lends credence to this. The airline the plaintiff pilot worked for notified him that
he was eligible for ex-gratia compensation if he left before retirement age. The company refused to pay the
plaintiff anything, arguing there was no intention to be bound.

6
Due to the fact that the matter was of a business or commercial character, the court did find that there was
intent, allowing the pilot to request the money. The onus was on the airline industry to show lack of intent,
which it failed to accomplish.

It is possible to refute assumptions regarding corporate agreements. However, courts often consider that
commercial-type situations establish enforceable agreements because they serve as the foundation of all
enterprises, making this rather difficult in most cases. It is possible, nevertheless, as demonstrated in the 1925
Rose & Frank v. Crompton (JR) & Bros Ltd. case, in which a written agreement between two businesses stated
that the arrangement was informal and not of a legal nature. Only an honorable vow would be made between
the two parties. When a disagreement later developed, the court looked into it and discovered that the
agreement was only honor-based and not meant to establish a legal relationship.

The second requirement for a basic contract is that the parties must agree in order for it to exist. This suggests
that the parties to the contract must "meet their minds." A "meeting of the minds" occurs when all parties are
in agreement and fully understand the terms of their agreement (Khoury & Yamouni, 2010).The making of an
offer is subject to the general guidelines listed below (Gibson & Fraser, 2007):

• There must be an intention in order to be bound.

• The promise must be unwavering.
• The offeree must be made aware of it.
• It must be unambiguous and simple.
• It may be directed towards a single person, a group, or a straightforward reality.
• All terms must be disclosed to the offeree.
• It may be revoked at any time prior to acceptance.

The offeror's pledge becomes an agreement once the offer is accepted. Acceptance may be communicated
orally, in writing, both, or through deeds. The key elements of acceptance are a willingness to accept exactly
what is offered and to pay the price necessary. Acceptance is the unconditional, full acceptance of the offer's
terms as presented in the manner outlined by the offeror.

A promise can only be legally enforceable when a price has been paid, according to contract law (Khoury &
Yamouni, 2010). This concept is discussed in the doctrine of contemplation. The idea is that a party must show
that they gave the other party thought before they can attempt to enforce a simple contract. A promise in
exchange for another promise, an act in trade for an act, an act in exchange for another act, and a promise to
forgo something are all examples of consideration (that is, not to do something).

It is not necessary to sell anything, pay money, or provide a service in order for there to be consideration;
rather, there could be consideration in the form of a promise NOT to sell something, pay money, provide a
service, or waive a benefit right. "Forbearance to sue" is an excellent example. This might occur if you have
the authority to sue someone but choose to forego it in favor of another benefit.

7
Step 3: Application to facts
In the event of a protracted and occasionally spiteful labor dispute with the Mechanical Engineers Association
in 2021, the representatives of Sacrimoni Mechanical Engineering Company Pty Ltd have agreed to make
specific one-time payments to the fund for the benefit of mechanical engineers should any of their employees
be laid off within the next five years.

Since this understanding between parties was oral and mutual it is a simple contract. For a contract to exist,
there must be an intention to be legally bound. The context and setting of this scenario are commercial or
business matters parties do have the intention to be legally bound. This presumption cannot be rebutted since
there is no written agreement that both parties do not have the intention to be legally bound or to create any
legal relations similar to the case of Rose & Frank v. Crompton (JR) & Bros Ltd (1925).

The offer was made with all the general guidelines listed as per (Gibson & Fraser, 2007). Sacrimoni made it
clear that they would not impose redundancies on any employee because they considered themselves a family
company that cared for staff members and their general well-being. The statement made by the Sacrimoni is
promissory and there is a "meeting of the minds" between parties as per (Khoury & Yamouni, 2010). Hence,
there is an offer, an agreement between both parties, and acceptance of the offer. The consideration in this
scenario is the “promise to forbear”. Consideration can consist of a promise NOT to waive a right to a benefit.

However, Sacrimoni Mechanical Engineering Company Pty Ltd was forced to restructure in the early months
of 2022 as a result of rising expenses and a large loss of market share brought on by fierce competition from
offshore engineering firms, particularly those in the Asia Pacific. Sacrimoni consequently laid off a number of
mechanical engineers. However, they declined to contribute anything to the superannuation fund, claiming
that they were under no legal responsibility to do so. In light of this, the Mechanical Engineers Association is
entitled to "forbearance to suit." This might occur if you have the authority to sue someone but choose to
forego it in favor of another benefit. This case and Edwards v. Skyways are comparable.

Step 4: Conclusion
It appears that Sacrimoni Mechanical Engineering Company Pty Ltd and Mechanical Engineers association
intend to enter into a legal contract. The commitment to refrain has been broken. This situation is
comparable to Edwards v. Skyways.

8
References

Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada Ltd (1986)

Bailey (2011)

Spencer v. Harding (1870)

Bailey (2011:103)

Smith & Wilson v. British Columbia Hydro Authority (1997) 33 C.L.R (2nd) 64

Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds (1677) (U.K.)

Sections 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA)

Edwards v Skyways

Rose & Frank v. Crompton (JR) & Bros Ltd (1925)

Khoury & Yamouni (2010)

Gibson & Fraser (2007)