CITY POLYTECHNIC OF HONG KONG v. BLUE CROSS (ASIA-PACIFIC) INSURANCE LTD

CITY POLYTECHNIC OF HONG KONG v. BLUE CROSS (ASIA-PACIFIC) INSURANCE LTD

The court held that the plaintiff's implied undertaking to consider all timely and conforming tenders constituted sufficient consideration to render the defendant's tender irrevocable for the three-month period specified from the tender deadline, and therefore the Master's order striking out for want of consideration was wrong and was reversed.

Citation
CITY POLYTECHNIC OF HONG KONG v. BLUE CROSS (ASIA-PACIFIC) INSURANCE LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong; Defendant/respondent: Blue Cross (Asia-Pacific) Insurance Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 October 1994
Case Number
HCA10750/1993
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal From Master's Order Striking Out Writ and Statement of Claim for Failure to Disclose Reasonable Cause of Action
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master's order striking out writ and Statement of Claim reversed; Statement of Claim restored
Legal Topics
Irrevocability of Tender, Consideration, Implied Contract, Tenders and Bidding Process, Anti Corruption Measures in Procurement
Source Language
EN
Commercial Law Contract Law Public Procurement Law Irrevocability of Tender Consideration Implied Contract Tenders and Bidding Process Anti Corruption Measures in Procurement

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City Polytechnic of Hong Kong

Plaintiff/appellant

Blue Cross (Asia-Pacific) Insurance Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal From Master's Order Striking Out Writ and Statement of Claim for Failure to Disclose Reasonable Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tender submitted in response to an invitation becomes irrevocable after the tender deadline absent separate consideration
  2. 2 Whether the invitor's implied undertaking to consider all timely and conforming tenders constitutes sufficient consideration to bind tenderers
  3. 3 Whether statutory duties (as in other jurisdictions) alter the analysis of consideration in tender contexts

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's implied undertaking to consider all timely and conforming tenders constituted sufficient consideration to render the defendant's tender irrevocable for the three-month period specified from the tender deadline, and therefore the Master's order striking out for want of consideration was wrong and was reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master's order striking out writ and Statement of Claim reversed; Statement of Claim restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and Master's order reversed
  • Fourteen day order nisi that costs here and below are to follow the event