PERMASTEELISA PTY LTD v FOUR SEAS NETWORK PTY LTD [2000] NSWCA 98

PERMASTEELISA PTY LTD v FOUR SEAS NETWORK PTY LTD [2000] NSWCA 98

The respondent had not repudiated the commission agency contract by inactivity because, during the relevant period, tenders for the COSCO project had not yet been called, there was little work to be done on that project, and the parties' active dealings concerned other Shanghai projects. The appellant's 8 October 1996 letter was itself a clear repudiation and did not validly terminate for breach by the respondent. Clause 4 was not triggered merely because the appellant's first tender proposal was not accepted; in the context of a competitive tender process, the parties contemplated negotiation and revised bids, and the ultimate letter of award and contract were consonant with the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal Concerning a Commission Agency Agreement for a Tendered Building Project / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From the Commercial Division Decision of Bainton J
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['invitation to Tender' 'repudiation by Inactivity' 'commission Agency Agreement' 'contractual Interpretation' 'conditions Precedent to Commission']
['contract Law'] ['invitation to Tender' 'repudiation by Inactivity' 'commission Agency Agreement' 'contractual Interpretation' 'conditions Precedent to Commission']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal Concerning a Commission Agency Agreement for a Tendered Building Project / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From the Commercial Division Decision of Bainton J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent repudiated the commission agency contract by inactivity between July and October 1996 so that the appellant validly terminated it on 8 October 1996.' "Whether clause 4 of the 22 April 1996 agreement prevented commission from becoming payable because the basic conditions of the appellant's first tender proposal were not maintained in the letter of award or project contract."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had not repudiated the commission agency contract by inactivity because, during the relevant period, tenders for the COSCO project had not yet been called, there was little work to be done on that project, and the parties' active dealings concerned other Shanghai projects. The appellant's 8 October 1996 letter was itself a clear repudiation and did not validly terminate for breach by the respondent. Clause 4 was not triggered merely because the appellant's first tender proposal was not accepted; in the context of a competitive tender process, the parties contemplated negotiation and revised bids, and the ultimate letter of award and contract were consonant with the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs']