Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club
黑潭和飞德航空俱乐部
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council
布莱克浦 & Flyde 航空俱乐部诉布莱克浦区议会
Court of Appeal [1990] 3 All ER 25; [1990] EWCA Civ 13
上诉法院 [1990] 3 All ER 25; [1990] EWCA Civ 13
Case details 案例详情
Court 法院
Court of Appeal, England 英格兰上诉法院
Judges 法官
Stocker LJ 斯托克 LJ
Bingham LJ 宾汉姆 LJ
Farquaharson LJ
Appeal from 上诉
Queen's Bench Division 后座法庭
Judge Jolly 乔利法官
Issues 问题
Offer v Invitation to Deal
要约 v 交易邀请
Implied terms 隐含条款
Tenders 投标
Link 链接
BaiLII ➤
Overview 概述
The case considered invitations to tender - was there an implied promise to consider all tenders submitted by the due date?
该案例考虑的是招标问题--是否有默示承诺考虑所有在截止日期前提交的投标书？
Facts 事实
Blackpool Borough Council (the Council), which ran Blackpool Airport, invited tenders for certain flights, to be submitted in an envelope provided by the Council by a
管理布莱克浦机场的布莱克浦自治市委员会（以下简称 "委员会"）邀请航空俱乐部在规定日期前用委员会提供的信封提交某些航班的投标书。航空俱乐部在规定日期前提交了投标书，但理事会错误地将其记录为逾期收到，因此投标书未被考虑。航空俱乐部声称理事会违反了合同，他们声称理事会曾承诺考虑在到期日之前提交的所有投标书。
Held (trail judge) 举行（越野赛裁判）
An express request for tender can give rise to an implied obligation to consider the tender. In this case the stipulation by Council that late tenders would not be considered gave rise to a
明确的招标要求可以产生考虑投标的默示义务。在本案中，理事会规定不考虑迟来的投标书，这就产生了考虑及时投标书的合同义务。
Held (appeal) 裁定（上诉）
Bingham LJ 宾汉姆 LJ
Because of the 'considerable labour and expense' that may be involved in preparing a tender then, at least where invitations to tender are provided to selected parties with clear procedures (as in this case) then, if the invitee submits a
由于准备投标书可能涉及'大量的劳动和费用'，因此，至少在向选定的各方发出投标邀请书并有明确程序的情况下（如本案），如果受邀者提交了符合要求的投标书，'他有权......确信他的投标书将......被打开和审议'。在这种情况下，招标书构成了要约，当航空俱乐部及时提交投标书时，该要约已被接受。
A tendering procedure of this kind is, in many respects, heavily weighted in favour of the invitor. He can invite tenders from as many or as few parties as he chooses. He need not tell any of them who else, or how many others, he has invited. The invitee may often, although not here, be put to considerable labour and expense in preparing a tender, ordinarily without recompense if he is unsuccessful. The invitation to tender may itself, in a complex case, although again not here, involve time and expense to prepare, but the invitor does not commit himself to proceed with the project, whatever it is; he need not accept the highest tender; he need not accept any tender; he need not give reasons to justify his acceptance or rejection of any tender received. The risk to which the tenderer is exposed does not end with the risk that his tender may not be the highest (or, as the case may be, lowest). But where, as here, tenders are solicited from selected parties all of them known to the invitor, and where a local authority's invitation prescribes a clear, orderly and familiar procedure (draft contract conditions available for inspection and plainly not open to negotiation, a prescribed common form of tender, the supply of envelopes designed to preserve the absolute anonymity of tenderers and clearly to identify the tender in question, and an absolute deadline) the invitee is in my judgment protected at least to this extent: if he submits a
conforming tender before the deadline he is entitled, not as a matter of mere expectation but ofcontractual right, to be sure that his tender will after the deadline be opened and considered in conjunction with all otherconforming tenders or at least that his tender will be considered if others are. Had the Club, before tendering, enquired of the Council whether it could rely on any timely andconforming tender being considered along with others, I feel quite sure that the answer would have been "of course". The law would, I think, be defective if it did not give effect to that.
It is of course true that the invitation to tender does not explicitly state that the Council will consider timely andconforming tenders. That is why one is concerned withimplication . But the Council does not either say that it does not bind itself to do anything, and in the context a reasonable invitee would understand the invitation to be saying, quite clearly, that if he submitted a timely andconforming tender it would be considered, at least if any other such tender were considered.
I readily accept that contracts are not to be lightly implied. Having examined what the parties said and did, the court must be able to conclude with confidence both that the parties intended to createcontractual relations and that the agreement was to the effectcontended for. It must also, in most cases, be able to answer the question posed by Mustill LJ in The Kapetan Markos N.L. (NO.2) [1987] 2 LI. 321 at 331: "What was the mechanism for offer and acceptance?" In all the circumstances of this case (and I say nothing about any other) I have no doubt that the parties did intend to createcontractual relations to the limited extentcontended for. ... I think it plain that the Council's invitation to tender was, to this limited extent, an offer, and the Club's submission of a timely andconforming tender an acceptance.
... I am ... pleased that what seems to me the right legal answer also accords with the merits as I see them.
... I would accordingly dismiss the appeal. ...
[emphasis added]
Stocker LJ 斯托克 LJ
Agreed with conclusions reached by Bingham LJ and his reasoning.
同意宾汉姆法官得出的结论及其推理。
The format of the invitation to tender document itself suggests, in my view, that a legal obligation to consider to tender submitted before any award of a concession was made to any other operator was to be implied in the case of any operator of aircraft to whom the invitation was directed who complied with its terms and conditions. The fact that the invitation to tender was limited to a very small class of operators is itself of significance. The circumstances surrounding the issue of the invitation to tender and the formal requirements imposed by it support the conclusion. Of particular significance, in my view, was the requirement that tenders be submitted in the official envelope supplied and endorsed... The purpose of this requirement must surely have been to preserve the anonymity of the tenderer and ... to prevent any premature leak of the nature and amount of such tender to other interested or potentially interested parties. Such a requirement, as a condition of the validity of the tender submitted, seems pointless unless all tenders submitted in time and in accordance with the requirements are to be considered before any award of the concession is made. There can be no doubt that this was the intention of both parties, as exemplified by the
defendant s' actions when their error with regard to the time of receipt of theplaintiff s' tender was appreciated. Such a common intention can, of course, exist without giving rise to anycontractual obligations, but the circumstances of this case indicate to me that this is one of the fairly rare exceptions to the general rule expounded in the leading cases of Spencer v Harding [1870] LR 5 CP 561 and Harris v Nickerson [1873] LR 8 QB 286. I therefore agree that in all the circumstances of this case there was an intention to create binding legal obligations if and when a tender was submitted in accordance with the terms of the invitation to tender, and that a bindingcontractual obligation arose that theplaintiff s' tender would be before the officer or committee by whom the decision was to be taken for consideration before a decision was made or any tender accepted. This would not preclude or inhibit thedefendant s from deciding not to accept any tender or to award the concession, provided the decision was bona fide and honest, to any tenderer. The obligation was that theplaintiff s' tender would be before the deciding body for consideration before any award was made. Accordingly, in my view, the conclusion of the learned judge and his reasons were correct. [emphasis added]
我认为，招标文件的格式本身就表明，在将任何特许权授予任何其他运营商之前，对于任何遵守招标书条款和条件的招标书所针对的飞机运营商，都隐含着考虑其投标书的法律义务。招标仅限于极少数经营者这一事实本身就具有重要意义。与发出招标书有关的情况以及招标书规定的正式要求都支持这一结论。在我看来，特别重要的是要求投标书必须装在所提供的正式信封内并加盖公章......。这一要求的目的肯定是为了保护投标人的匿名性，并......防止将投标书的性质和数额过早地泄露给其他有关方面或可能有关的方面。除非在授予特许权之前对所有及时提交并符合要求的投标书进行审议，否则作为投标书有效条件的这一要求似乎毫无意义。毫无疑问，这是双方的意图，当被告在收到原告投标书的时间上的错误被发现时，他们的行动就证明了这一点。当然，这种共同意图可以存在而不引起任何合同义务，但本案的情况向我表明，这是Spencer诉Harding [1870] LR 5 CP 561和Harris诉Nickerson [1873] LR 8 QB 286等主要案例所阐述的一般规则的相当罕见的例外情况之一。 因此，我同意，在本案的所有情况下，如果按照投标邀请书的条款提交了投标书，就存在产生具有约束力的法律义务的意图，并且产生了具有约束力的合同义务，即在做出决定或接受任何投标书之前，原告的投标书将提交做出决定的官员或委员会审议。这并不妨碍或阻止被告决定不接受任何投标或将特许权授予任何投标人，只要该决定是善意和诚实的。被告的义务是，在做出任何裁决之前，原告的投标书应提交决策机构审议。[着重部分由作者标明]
Held (Bingham LJ) 举行（宾汉姆法官）
Because of the 'considerable labour and expense' that may be involved in preparing a tender then, at least where invitations to tender are provided to selected parties with clear procedures (as in this case) then, if the invitee submits a
由于准备投标书可能涉及'大量的劳动和费用'，因此，至少在向选定的各方发出投标邀请书并有明确程序的情况下（如本案），如果受邀者提交了符合要求的投标书，'他有权......确信他的投标书将......被打开和审议'。在这种情况下，招标书构成了要约，当航空俱乐部及时提交投标书时，该要约已被接受。