Harvela v Royal Trust, AC 207

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Kopec Ltd recently sought sealed bids to award a contract for the manufacture of specialized engine components. In their tender invitation, Kopec Ltd explicitly stated that they would choose the highest valid bid from all submissions. Two bidders, Landco Manufacturing and GreenCon Solutions, responded with their proposals. Landco's bid offered a fixed sum of £750,000. GreenCon submitted a referential offer stating it would pay £50,000 more than any other bidder, raising questions about the certainty and fairness of such an arrangement.


Which of the following statements best reflects the legal position of GreenCon's referential bid under controlling case law on sealed bids?

Introduction

A sealed-bid tender, when correctly managed, forms a binding proposal from a participant. This principle, set out in Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207, explains the legal basis of such methods. The House of Lords decided that asking for sealed bids creates a binding agreement, requiring the party seeking bids to take the highest valid bid submitted. Key conditions for this principle include clear explanation of the process by the invitor and exact following of the rules by bidders. This ruling strongly affects commercial practices for tenders and auctions, offering a structure for legal review.

The Referential Bid Problem

A main issue in Harvela was how referential bids were handled. Royal Trust requested sealed bids for shares, agreeing to take the “highest offer.” Harvela gave a fixed bid, while Outerbridge made a referential bid proposing a price above others. The House of Lords found such bids invalid because they disturbed the sealed-bid system. Their review showed that sealed-bid tenders aim to create clear and fair competition, where each bidder provides one specific proposal. Referential bids introduce uncertainty and stop bidders from knowing real competing positions, weakening the sealed-bid method.

Binding Obligations and Tender Methods

The House of Lords’ decision confirmed that a properly run sealed-bid tender forms a binding agreement. The invitation to bid acts as an offer, and a valid bid serves as acceptance, creating a contract. This difference matters: the invitor keeps the right to reject bids until a valid one is given. However, once a compliant bid is received, the invitor must follow their original terms—in Harvela, this meant taking the highest valid bid. This method protects bidders who spend time preparing bids, keeping trust in the tender process.

Relation to Auction Practices

The Harvela decision links to known auction types. Traditional auctions, like open or descending-price models, differ from sealed-bid tenders in structure and information available to bidders. However, the binding nature of offers in sealed-bid tenders matches some auction ideas. The judgment stresses the need for exact rules and clear steps in competitive bidding to ensure fairness and stop manipulative actions. The case shows how courts read unstated conditions in auction and tender systems, focusing on plain language in bid invitations.

Contract Interpretation and Implied Conditions

The House of Lords also dealt with contract interpretation and implied terms in Harvela. Though the bid invitation did not directly ban referential bids, the court decided such a ban was needed based on the main goal of a sealed-bid tender. This way of handling implied terms points to the role of context and purpose in contract review. The judges stated that allowing referential bids would break the purpose of sealed bidding, which is to ensure equal and clear competition. This reading adds protections for bidders in such processes.

Subsequent Decisions and Practical Applications

The rules from Harvela have affected later decisions on tenders and auctions. Cases like Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 1 WLR 1195 broadened legal rules for tender processes, focusing on fairness and clarity. In practice, Harvela guides how bid invitations are written, needing direct instructions on submission formats and selection rules. It shows the need to directly ban referential bids in sealed-bid tenders to avoid disputes and keep the process honest.

Conclusion

The Harvela decision gives a clear legal structure for treating sealed-bid tenders as binding agreements. The House of Lords’ ruling explains how bid invitations can be enforced and the issues caused by referential bids. The fairness, transparency, and rule-following principles set in Harvela stay key to keeping trust in competitive bidding. The case’s focus on contract interpretation and implied terms strengthens the need for exact language in bid invitations. This judgment continues to guide legal reviews of tendering and auction practices, keeping its importance in commercial law. The main rules from Harvela remain useful tools for ensuring fair and organized competition, confirming its place as a major contract law case.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal