Mr. Saleem decided to construct a factory in his premises in order to be able to meet

a tender award he had obtained from a manufacturing company. He therefore

contracted a registered builder in order to have the work completed by November 1 st

and the contractor agreed. However, the contractor had assumed that the garage

was for private use and therefore did not consider it that urgent. What transpired is

that when there was a delay in materials delivery, he did not communicate it and as

a result the project delayed till February the following year. Therefore, he took the

contractor to court in order to recover the loss he had incurred. In his lawsuit he

argued that the delay in construction cost him about $150,000 which is the value of

the tender and as such wanted the registered contractor to pay him the amount of

the tender he lost due to breach of contract by the registered constructor. However,

the registered contractor argued that while the urgency was communicated, Mr.

Saleem did not communicate that the garage was not needed for the specific

execution of the tender from the manufacturing company. The issue therefore is

whether the court has the legal authority to order the registered contractor to pay the

amount equal to the exact value of the contract he lost as a result of lack of

completion of the garage within the specific time that had been communicated.

Q# Explain the nature of tender or offer to perform in relation to the above

mentioned scenario.?