Home Page | Cases | Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial & General Investments Ltd

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education
v Commercial & General Investments Ltd

[1970] 1 WLR 241; [1969] 3 All ER 1593

Overview

MDC called for tenders relating to property. The call for tenders stated that acceptance was to be notified to the person whose tender was accepted by letter sent ‘by post addressed to the address given in his tender’. 

C&G submitted a tender (offer to buy). MDC decided to accept C&G tender and sent their acceptance to the C&G's solicitor, which was not the address given in the offer. C&G knew of this acceptance.

Was there a contract? In particular, was a mandatory form stipulated for acceptance and, if so, was it followed by MDC?

The Court held that the method of acceptance set out in the tender was not mandatory; if an offeror wishes to make a form of acceptance mandatory that needs to be made clearl explicitly.

Letterbox

 

Facts

MDC called for tenders relating to property. The call for tenders stated that acceptance was to be notified to the person whose tender was accepted by letter sent ‘by post addressed to the address given in his tender’. 

C&G submitted a tender (offer to buy). MDC decided to accept C&G tender and sent their acceptance to the C&G's solicitor, which was not the address given in the offer. C&G knew of this acceptance.

Issue

Was there a contract? In particular, was a mandatory form stipulated for acceptance and, if so, was it followed by MDC?

 

Held

The method of acceptance prescribed in the tender was not mandatory - here the offeror was made aware of the acceptance by an equally effective method and thus the acceptance was effective.