TENDEES 101 



disallowed the amount which he estimated as the loss to the 

 ratepayers therefrom. The Highways Committee stated that 

 they had accepted the tender which they considered the most 

 advantageous. An application was made for a writ of 

 certiorari to bring up and quash the disallowance. It was 

 held that, with regard to the contract for the supply of goods, 

 the Highways Committee had acted honestly in the matter, 

 that there was no evidence of negligence, and that the accept- 

 ance of the tender was proper. (See further as to tenders to 

 local authorities, 16, post.) 



14. Fraud in relation to tender. If a contractor secures 

 the acceptance of his tender by fraud i.e., by offering and 

 paying a bribe to the employer's engineer the employer may 

 have the contract set aside. Where he allows the contract to 

 go on, he may recover the bribe from the engineer, and sue 

 the contractor for damages. (See Salford (Mayor of ) v. Lever, 

 1891, 1 Q. B. 168.) 



15. Agreements not to tender. An important question 

 sometimes arises as to the validity of an agreement amongst 

 a number of contractors not to tender for a particular piece of 

 work. This course is sometimes adopted in order to leave the 

 field clear for an independent contractor, who may be under 

 agreement to share profits with those who have stood out of 

 the way. The principle that an agreement on these lines is 

 not void was declared in the case of Jones v. North, 1875, L. K. 

 19 Eq. 426. There it appeared that tenders for the supply of 

 stone were invited by a corporation. Four quarry-owners 

 entered into an agreement that they should each supply a 

 certain proportion of the stone, and that the plaintiffs should 

 make the lowest tender to the corporation. The plaintiffs 

 entered into contracts with other quarry-owners to purchase 

 the proportion of stone agreed upon from each. Notwith- 

 standing the agreement, one of the quarry-owners sent in a 

 tender which was accepted by the corporation. The other 

 owners, who had been parties to the agreement, thereupon 

 applied to the Court for an injunction to restrain the supply 

 of stone to the corporation by the defendant. It was held, 

 over-ruling an objection by the defendant, that the agreement 

 was not void either as against public policy or on any other 

 ground. 



