Topic: Contracts Law (Australia)

Case Details:

Sierra Foxtrot Airport called for tenders for supplies of green seed for its runway surrounds, with a

closing date of 1 June.

The following tenders were submitted:

Green Grow hand-delivered its tender on 29 May, which went into the tender box.

Sow This! posted its tender on 15 May. This letter was received by Sierra Foxtrot on 17 May,

by being submitted so early, one of the administrative assistants filed it with the intention of

later putting it in the box when she was properly organised.

Grassy Plains posted its tender on 30 May. This letter arrived on 2 June but nevertheless

was put into the tender box.

It transpired that only two of the tenders were considered by the relevant Sierra Foxtrot officers. The

administrative assistant forgot where she had filed the Sow This! tender and did not find it again

until a week after the decision was made. The tender by Sow This! was actually the lowest and

contained the most attractive features.

Green Grow's tender was the next lowest, but Sierra Foxtrot had heard rumours about its

unreliability. The airport, therefore, awarded the contract to Grassy Plains. Sierra Foxtrot posted a

letter to Grassy Plains advising that its tender was successful. Unfortunately, this letter never

reached Grassy Plains because it was destroyed by a disgruntled postal worker who had just been

made redundant. Since it had not heard from Sierra Foxtrot, Grassy Plains instead committed its full

stock of seed to another contract with a regional council.

Sierra Foxtrot became aware of the full situation concerning the tender by Sow This! and the

position in which Grassy Plains now finds itself.

It seeks advice concerning its contractual position in relation to all three tenders.

Advise Sierra Foxtrot with reference to legal principles and rules taught on contract law.

Note: Kindly follow IRAC method