The Tenders Committee disqualified a tender bid because the name of the bidder was written differently than at the bid.
The Supreme Court held that the laws of tenders review any defect in a bank guarantee under strict scrutiny, but that not any defect will cause the bid to be disqualified. A mistake in the date of the guarantee or in the name of the bidder will invalidate a guarantee. However, the tender should be construed under its purpose and not only under its specific language, and in this case it is clear that the purpose of ensuring the name on the guarantee is to ensure that the guarantor is also the bidder. Here, the two forms in which the name is written clearly indicate the same person and the fact that the bid has the name of the bidder written slightly differently does not allow him to avoid his duties as guarantor, claiming that his name was not registered on the guarantee accurately and therefore the guarantee is not invalid. For this reason, the Court held that the bid would not be disqualified only because of the slightly different wording of the name on the bank guarantee.