Business Law Report: Tender and Contract Law Analysis in Australia

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of business law in Australia, addressing two key scenarios. The first scenario examines a university's tender process for seed procurement, exploring the legal implications of offers, acceptances, and the formation of contracts among various companies. It highlights the differences between tenders and contracts, focusing on the requirements for a legally binding agreement. The second scenario analyzes a case involving an auction conducted by Footloose Ltd., focusing on the principles of offer and acceptance, consideration, and the application of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999. The report evaluates the validity of contracts formed through electronic means, specifically addressing the communication via fax and the legal implications of such transactions. The analysis covers the essential elements of contract law, including offer, acceptance, and the intentions of parties involved, as well as the importance of the Electronic Transaction Act in the context of business dealings. This report aims to provide a clear understanding of the legal principles governing contracts and tenders in the Australian business environment.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business law
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
In the provision of Australia, there are certain common laws available that are
governing the legal matters. There are certain laws deals with contract related matters. In the
present case, there is a provision based on tender work (Alexander and Merkert 2017). In a
business country like Australia, tender is a common process. Tendering process is observed
in private as well as public sector. It is used to procure the goods and services within the
continent of Australia (Bailey, 2014). It is a fact that in the tendering process, certain
provisions of the contract law is being followed up. However, through the tendering process,
no legal relationship is being created within the principle and the tender holder. In the process
of tendering, there is a lack of interest shown in between the parties because of the absence of
legal relationship (Cartwright 2016).
In the present case, the university has demanded for certain specified seeds. The
company has conducted a tendering process regarding the same. In case of tender, there are
certain proceedings should be maintained (Goodall 2015). In case of tender, closing dates are
important. Here, it has been observed that the University has mentioned a closing date for the
tender and there are three companies, who are applied for the same. The closing date of the
tender was 1 June and there was a rule that the tender application must be gone in the tender
box. Among the three companies, two company’s letter was put in the tender box. However,
the application of another company named Enviro was submitted on early basis (Keyes 2017).
As per the provision of law, when there is an offer is made for a certain subject and
the same be accepted by the other party, there will be a contract in between two rose. The
contracting parties must be competent to make the agreement and the eligibility of the parties
should not be restricted by any of the provision of the Contract Act (Lam and Lee 2014). The
parties should have certain intention to participate in the bid. However, the most important

2BUSINESS LAW
thing regarding the bid or tender is it should be treated as an invitation and not creates any
contract thereby. In Pratt Contractor Limited v. Palmerston North City Council, it was held
by the court that bids are only an uncomplicated request and not binding the parties in any
manner.
The main issue is about the contractual positions of all the parties. An offer has been
made by the University and it has been observed that three companies had shown their
interest in that (McKendrick 2014). There are certain essentials of contract take place, such as
offer, acceptance, consideration, capability of the parties. However, an important point is to
be taken place regarding the acceptance of the offer of those companies by the University. In
this case, the conditions given by Plant Forever had been accepted by University but the same
was failed to reach at the company. This act failed to bind the parties legally. Another
element of contract is knowledge. But the acts of the parties had failed to meet this
ingredient. There is a difference between tender and contract. Tender arose when there is an
invitation made and it comprised of certain terms. In the other hand, contract means an
agreement that is binding by law. However, in the case of Plant forever, there was no legal
relationship had been made in between the them.
The tender conditions of Greenland were lowest in nature and the reputation of the
company is also not good. Therefore, the University authorities had not revealed their interest
towards the company. In case of the Enviro, it has been observed that the conditions of the
company were attracted. There were certain problems cropped up regarding the company.
First, the company had posted the tender in a wrong way and the letter of the tender was
posted at an early stage. However, the University authority had somehow managed the
situation but the administrative assistant had misplaced the letter and therefore, it was not
possible for University to make any agreement with Enviro (Morse and Deutsch 2016).

3BUSINESS LAW
Therefore, from the above paragraphs, it is cleared that there are certain differences
present in between tender and contract. It can be observed that certain invitation had been
made regarding the seeds but there were no agreement made among University and three
companies and no legal relationship had been made. Therefore, it can be stated that there
were no contract position has ever created in this case.
Question 2
In Australia, there is a law enacted that are deals with the Electronic Transaction
enacted in the year 1999 and the case of Footloose attracts the provision of the Act. There are
certain provisions regarding the Australian Contract Act that are also applied in this particular
case.
In Australia, the nature of the laws is common law and the origin of the same derives
from English law. In this case, there is a provision on offer and acceptance. According to the
common law principle, offer is an invitation made by any competent person at any stage and
there is a close distinction between offer and invitation to deal (Ready 2015).
In this case, an auction had been made by the Footloose Ltd. in a local paper with
certain discounts on shoes. The offer made by the company is a type of offer and the same
was posted on 1st October. In the poster, there was a provision regarding the amount of the
shoes and the offer made by the company attracted the terms of the tender conditions (Skeel
2014).
After the offer had been made by the manufacturing company, two sales companies
had accepted the offer. Under the Australian Contract Act, an acceptance can be made by
three ways but there is no particular form of acceptance (Smith and Duke 2014). As per the law
of England, the acceptance should be made without any coercion or undue influence. As per

4BUSINESS LAW
the statement of the case, on 2nd October, a shoe company revealed its interest against the
offer and they announce their willingness regarding the offer to the Sales Manager of
Footloose.
The offer made by the Footloose Ltd. was public in nature. Therefore, there can be
more than one acceptance regarding the same offer (Smith and Duke 2014). On 6th October,
another shoe company, James’ Shoe accepted the offer and followed the same principle as the
previous company. The Sales manager of Footloose had responded him back only and a
contract made between the two.
It is noteworthy that in case of any sale, there must be certain consideration and in this
case, the elements of the point have been fulfilled. The consideration item and money, both
are stated by the companies and both of them are agreed on it. The proposal made by James
was in a written version. In the chapter of acceptance, it is clearly mentioned that an
acceptance can be made in three ways among which there is a point on written version.
Therefore, it can be stated that the acceptance process of James is acceptable by law. After
getting the nod from the Footloose Ltd. James decided to fix a date for the final settlement
with the manufacturing company and replied them back on 8th October.
In this case, a chain of dates are to be seen. Agreements are made of certain proposals
and that are to be consigned by the parties. After the proposal made by James, both the
parties had made certain propositions and decided a final date for the contract of those
tendered shoes. On 10th October they had came into the conclusion that they should meet
somewhere else to finalise the matter and sign the agreement to facilitate the contractual
relationship.
The case has enlightened the provision of the Electronic Transaction Act 1999 as all
the dealings were made by way of Fax (Swain 2014). The provision of the Act applies only

5BUSINESS LAW
where there is an electronic contract is being used. Therefore, it can be stated that the case is
attracting certain provisions of the said Act. The Australian Courts are also of the view that
online transactions and electronic contract are the two main contents of the Act and the same
was proved in a case decision of Australian Communication of Media Authority v.
Mobiligated Ltd. (2009).
Therefore, from the above named paragraphs, it can be stated that the contract was
made in between Footloose and James’ shoe. The reason behind the same is that the offer or
conditions proposed by James was accepted by the shoe manufacturing company and both the
parties were ready to made the contract final. A chain of dates are mentioned here in this case
and that are of important in nature. Each date prescribe certain events that were attract the
provision of the Contract law.

6BUSINESS LAW
Reference:
Alexander, D.W. and Merkert, R., 2017. Challenges to domestic air freight in Australia: Evaluating
air traffic markets with gravity modelling. Journal of Air Transport Management, 61, pp.41-52.
Bailey, J., 2014. Construction Law. Crc Press.
Cartwright, J., 2016. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goodall, H., 2015. Contract gangs: race, gender and vulnerability. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 7(3), pp.23-36.
Keyes, M., 2017. Australia: Foreign Law in Australian International Litigation: Developing the
Common Law. In Treatment of Foreign Law-Dynamics towards Convergence? (pp. 503-528).
Springer, Cham.
Lam, T.I.P. and Lee, P., 2014. A comparative study of standard contract conditions for energy
performance contracting in Australia, Canada and the United States. Construction law journal.
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Morse, S.C. and Deutsch, R., 2016. Tax Anti-Avoidance Law in Australia and the United States.
Ready, K., 2015. Email contracts: Who, what, when and where the formation of binding agreements
through email exchanges. Governance Directions, 67(10), p.620.
Skeel, D.A., 2014. Corporate Governance and Social Welfare in the Common Law World.
Smith, R.L. and Duke, A., 2014. Agreements and competition law in Australia. Competition and
Consumer Law Journal, 22, pp.54-79.
Swain, W., 2014. Contract Codification in Australia: Is It Necessary, Desirable and Possible. Sydney
L. Rev., 36, p.131.

7BUSINESS LAW
Vettori, S., 2016. The employment contract and the changed world of work. CRC Press.
Westmore, P., 2015. What Australia post can learn from NZ's Kiwibank. News Weekly, (2943), p.24.