Manchester Diocesan Council of Education v Commercial and General Investments [1969]
Share
Manchester Diocesan Council of Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1593 centred around contractual issues arising from the acceptance of a tender offer.
The complainants, Manchester Diocesan Council of Education, initiated a tender process related to a property. The defendant, Commercial and General Investments Ltd, submitted a tender offer to purchase the property. The terms stipulated that acceptance of the tender would be communicated through a posted document to the address specified in the tender offer. When the complainants decided to accept the defendant's tender, they sent the acceptance document, but it was addressed to the defendant's solicitor instead of the address provided in the offer. Subsequently, the complainants sent another acceptance to the correct address.
The key issues in the case revolved around the timeliness of the acceptance and whether the initial mailing to the wrong address could still constitute a valid agreement. The defendants argued that, by the time they received the correct acceptance document, the offer had already lapsed.
The court ruled that there was no mandated or obligatory method for accepting a tender. It emphasised that if the offeror intended to establish a specific and obligatory acceptance process, this requirement must be clearly and explicitly communicated to the other parties involved. In this case, the court held that any method of acceptance that was equally effective would be sufficient to form a valid contract.
Therefore, the court concluded that the acceptance sent to the defendant's solicitor, while not initially the correct address, was still a valid form of acceptance. The absence of a mandatory acceptance method in the tender offer allowed for flexibility in the acceptance process, and the subsequent correct mailing further affirmed the validity of the contract between the complainants and the defendant.
The complainants, Manchester Diocesan Council of Education, initiated a tender process related to a property. The defendant, Commercial and General Investments Ltd, submitted a tender offer to purchase the property. The terms stipulated that acceptance of the tender would be communicated through a posted document to the address specified in the tender offer. When the complainants decided to accept the defendant's tender, they sent the acceptance document, but it was addressed to the defendant's solicitor instead of the address provided in the offer. Subsequently, the complainants sent another acceptance to the correct address.
The key issues in the case revolved around the timeliness of the acceptance and whether the initial mailing to the wrong address could still constitute a valid agreement. The defendants argued that, by the time they received the correct acceptance document, the offer had already lapsed.
The court ruled that there was no mandated or obligatory method for accepting a tender. It emphasised that if the offeror intended to establish a specific and obligatory acceptance process, this requirement must be clearly and explicitly communicated to the other parties involved. In this case, the court held that any method of acceptance that was equally effective would be sufficient to form a valid contract.
Therefore, the court concluded that the acceptance sent to the defendant's solicitor, while not initially the correct address, was still a valid form of acceptance. The absence of a mandatory acceptance method in the tender offer allowed for flexibility in the acceptance process, and the subsequent correct mailing further affirmed the validity of the contract between the complainants and the defendant.
