Case note: Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council

Essay by kristie78University, Bachelor'sB, February 2007

download word file, 12 pages 5.0

Downloaded 56 times

CONTENTS PAGE:

Facts of the case.............................................................3

Procedural history...........................................................4

Legal issues in dispute......................................................4

The decision..................................................................3

Analytical Discussion of the implications for the principles of law

regarding offer and acceptance............................................6

Current law in Australia regarding offer and acceptance..............10

Theoretical perspective.....................................................12

Conclusion...................................................................14

Bibliography.................................................................17

Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council

Facts of the Case:

The Defendant's, a local council, owned and operated Blackpool Airport, and since 1975 had granted the Plaintiff's club a concession to operate pleasure flights out of the airport . In 1983 when the last concession was to expire, the Council sent out to seven potentially interested parties (including the Plaintiff) an invitation to tender for a three year concession. The invitation was in common form, it stipulated that the Council 'does not bind itself to accept all or any part of any tender' and that all tenders were to be submitted in the envelope provided with the upmost confidentiality in mind.

It further stated that any tenders received after the date and time specified would not be considered.

The Plaintiff's posted their tender in accordance with the time specifications and instructions. However because of an oversight the Town Clerk Staff failed to empty the letter box that day and subsequently the Plaintiff's tender was recorded as being too late for consideration.

The Defendant's accepted another tender (lower than the Plaintiff's) and the Club then bought an action against the Council for breach of contract and negligence (which will not be discussed here). The claim contended that the Council had warranted that if a tender was received in accordance with their instructions it would be duly considered and the Council had acted in breach of that warranty.

Procedural History:

The case originated in the Queens Bench Division at Manchester District Registry, presided over by Judge Jolly. The Council...