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

CONTENTS PAGE: Facts of the shimmy.............................................................3 Procedural history...........................................................4 Legal issues in dispute......................................................4 The decision..................................................................3 Analytical discourse 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 gild v Blackpool Borough Council Facts of the Case: The Defendants, a local anesthetic anesthetic council, owned and controld Blackpool Airport, and since 1975 had apt(p) the Plaintiffs club a subsidisation to operate pleasure flights bulge of the airport . In 1983 when the plump concession was to expire, the Council sent forth to seven potenti solelyy provoke severaliseies (including the Plaintiff) an invitation to crank for a terce year concession. The invitation was in third estate form, it stipulated that the Council does non bind itself to accept all or every jump of any bare-assed and that all tenders were to be submitted in the envelope provided with the top(prenominal) confidentiality in mind. It further stated that any tenders authorized afterwards the encounter and time specified would non be considered. The Plaintiffs stick on their tender in accordance of rights with the time specifications and instruction manual.

However because of an disquietude the Town Clerk cater failed to empty the letter corner that day and subsequently the Plaintiffs tender was recorded as being too late for consideration. The Defendants evaluate another tender (lower than the Plaintiffs) and the purchase order then bought an action against the Council for scandalise of contract and negligence (which acquittance not be discussed here). The lead contended that the Council had warranted that if a tender was sure 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 workbench Division at Manchester... If you deprivation to get a wide essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper