GHP PILING LT V LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-003231

GHP PILING LT V LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-003231

No preliminary contract was formed: the 7 May 2009 document was an invitation to quote not an offer; material uncertainties and lack of prescribed evaluation criteria, registration or contractual terms (liquidated damages, retentions, conditions) and GHP's non‑conforming validity period meant there was no objective offer and acceptance; therefore defendants had no contractual obligation to consider only conforming tenders and the claim fails.

Citation
openlaw-8380b9ca_4127_464b_bf8d_a00d3cc9c0f3.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: GHP PILING LIMITED; First Defendant: LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED; Second Defendant: DOWNER EDI WORKS LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute / Trial and Judgment (judgment Delivered 13 July 2012)
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Tendering Process, Preliminary Contract, Offer and Acceptance, Implied Terms, Damages for Lost Profit, Subcontract Procurement
Contract Law Construction Law Procurement Law Commercial Law Tendering Process Preliminary Contract Offer and Acceptance Implied Terms +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GHP PILING LIMITED

Plaintiff

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED

First Defendant

DOWNER EDI WORKS LIMITED

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute / Trial and Judgment (judgment Delivered 13 July 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a preliminary tender/process contract arose from the 7 May 2009 request and GHP's 20 May 2009 quotation
  2. 2 Whether defendants breached any implied terms (fairness, exclusivity to conforming tenders) in the tendering process
  3. 3 Quantum of damages for loss of profit if liability established

Ratio Decidendi

No preliminary contract was formed: the 7 May 2009 document was an invitation to quote not an offer; material uncertainties and lack of prescribed evaluation criteria, registration or contractual terms (liquidated damages, retentions, conditions) and GHP's non‑conforming validity period meant there was no objective offer and acceptance; therefore defendants had no contractual obligation to consider only conforming tenders and the claim fails.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Costs reserved; defendants to file submissions on costs within 14 days and plaintiff to file submissions within a further 14 days.