According to the case of AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454 tenders do not constitute an offer if they are not complete and merely are known as invitation to a treat or invitation to an offer. An invitation to an offer has no legal significance. A tender can only be regarded as a complete offer case it contains significant term like price, mode of delivery date of completion and other terms relevant to the agreement.
It is not compulsory to accept an offer for tender unless it is stated otherwise by the tender like the lowest price tender would be selected.
Once an offer is rejected the offeree cannot accept it again as provided in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344
The postal rule of acceptance as provided by the landmark case of Adam v Lindsey 1881 provides that as soon as the letter of acceptance leaves the control of the sender and sent through post the acceptance is deemed to be done the moment the letter is beyond control if it is addressed correctly.
Greenland- green land responded to the tender invitation provided by the university on 29th march which way before the last date on which the tender could be submitted. As discussed an invitation for tender is not an offer. Green Land had made the 2nd lowest price tender however their tender was not accepted due to market rumors concerning unreliability of the company. As discussed above it is not necessary for a person to whom a tender is made to accept it. Thus the university has no legal obligation to Greenland. However the university cannot accept the tender again as once it has been rejected and the rejection is acceptance of plant forever tender by the university expressly communicated the rejection of tender to Greenland. There was no contract created between the University and Greenland.
Enviro- in this case the tender was sent on 15th may by post and reached the university on 17th May. However the tender was not put in the box. As discussed above the university inly made an invitation to an offer and was not liable to accept any offer. There was no contract created between the university and Enviro as the offer was not available for consideration. However the offer made by Enviro is still available to be accepted as it had been discovered after the decision was made and had not been rejected by the university.
Plant forever- The tender which was posted by plant forever on 30th may reached the university on 2nd June which was beyond the time prescribed for the tender invitation. However according to the principles of postal rule it would be deemed that the tender was effective on 30th May itself which was before the prescribed time and thus valid. The letter of acceptance in relation to the tender was posted by the University however the letter did not reach plant forever. It has been further provided that plant forever did not receive the letter as it was destroyed by a post worker. However according to the principles of the postal rule as soon as the letter was posted a contract was formed between the university and Plant Forever. This is because a proper offer and acceptance process had been completed between the parties. Thus the university has the right to claim compensation from plant forever as it as committed its full stock elsewhere.
There was no contract between the university and Greenland
There was no contract between the university and Enviro
There was a contract between the university and Plant forever which and been breached by the latter.
The issue is this part of the paper is to find out the legal effects of each correspondence between Famous footwear, James’s shoes and Footloose.
As provided by the case of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc  HCA 8 unless the primary terms of a contract are not included in an offer it cannot be considered as a legal offer constituting a binding agreement. For instance, with respect to the sale of goods the price, delivery date, detailed description of items and the date of payment has to be present in an offer.
According to the case of Smith v Huges (1871) LR 6 QB 597 whether an agreement has been reached by two parties or not or whether a complete offer has been made is determined by the court through the application of a criteria which is described as the objective test. Does the parties on subjective intention is irrelevant for the purpose of determine in that a valid offer has been made or not and how the situation would be viewed by a reasonable person is considered by the court.
An offer which is not complete in nature is only an invitation to an offer and has no legally binding effect to it stated in the case of Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council  3 All ER 25
When an acceptance is made it has to be totally matching the terms of the offer if there is any alternation to the terms of the offer so the acceptance then the acceptance cannot be regarded as valid and would only be down as a counter offer which has no legal effect.
When a counter offer is made by a party the original offer gets terminated through search counter offer as provided by the case of Harvey v. Facey  A.C. 552.
As provided by the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) Beav 334 valid contract is only established well all its elements are met. The initial elements which are required to form a contract offer and acceptance. Only when legal offer are has been accepted in a proper manner according to the provisions of common law can a contract come into existence.
An advertisement was given by Footloose in a daily newspaper on 1st October. As discussed above if an offer is not complete it is only regarded as an invitation to an offer. In this case no clear transfer mentioned by the advertisement as it only stated that flies started at $2,000 per hundred days without disclosing which styles are priced at what rates. The mode of payment the quantity of goods and the date of delivery nothing was mentioned in the advertisement. Does the advertisement only constituted to an invitation to an offer.
On 2nd October a letter was sent by famous footwear stating that the offer made in the daily news was accepted by them and they wish to buy 500 pairs at 2000 per 100 pairs. It was also mention that delivery date would follow. The statement did not account on acceptance as the advertisement was only an invitation to an offer and in addition I did not a point to a valid offer as no delivery details or the mode of payment was provided through it.
On 4th October James shoes sent an offer in response to the invitation to an offer made by Footloose on 1st October that they would like to purchase 2000 pair of sling bag sandals at a price of 30000 which included GST and delivery. This was a valid offer is a reasonable person would be induced by it to get into a contract.
On 6th October counter offer was sent buy Footloose to James shoes stating that they will sell the thing back sandals at 30000 for 2000 pairs but the price would be exclusive of GST. It was further stated that the payment would be accepted by cheque or cash. This was a counter offer because the terms of the acceptance was not same as the offer made on 4th October where the place Where's inclusive of GST.
On 8 October a letter was sent by James to Footloose which provided that referring to the counter offer made on 6th October gents footwear are ready to meet the terms of the offer however the delivery date was still to be ascertain does a proper acceptance was yet to be made.
The contract was finally formed on 10th October where Ms Simeone a call chains and discussed that the delivery of the sandals would be collected by James shoes on 1st November from famous Footloose Sydney warehouse. This could be termed as a complete contract because all the Essentials of a valid offer and acceptance for completed on this date.
From 1st October to 8th October the communication between the three companies only lead to invitation to an offer, offers and Counter offers. A proper contract through a valid acceptance was only made n 10th October between Footloose and James’s shoes.
AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424.
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council  3 All ER 25
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc  HCA 8
Harvey v. Facey  A.C. 552.
Hyde v Wrench (1840) Beav 334
Smith v huges (1871) LR 6 QB 597