Concluded contract and reasoned arbitral award principles upheld where tender acceptance and record-based findings bound the parties.

Unconditional acceptance of a tender within the validity period, together with subsequent conduct such as furnishing a bank guarantee and correspondence on supply, can crystallise a binding concluded contract despite a later request to vary price. On those facts, the supplier's failure to supply justified risk purchase. An arbitral award will not be interfered with merely because its reasons are brief; where the award refers to the material on record and shows a rational connection between evidence and conclusion, it is not unreasoned or unsupported by evidence. The objections to the award were rejected and the award was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the correspondence and conduct between the parties resulted in a concluded contract with binding obligations as to supply; (ii) Whether the arbitral award suffered from absence of reasons or lack of evidence so as to warrant interference.

Issue (i): Whether the correspondence and conduct between the parties resulted in a concluded contract with binding obligations as to supply.

Analysis: The tender process, the request for firm acceptance, the unconditional acceptance by the supplier within the validity period, and the later conduct including furnishing of bank guarantee and correspondence concerning supply showed that the parties had moved beyond a mere invitation to offer. The later request for variation of price did not undo the earlier unconditional acceptance, and the subsequent orders were treated as arising from a binding contractual arrangement. The supplier's failure to make supplies justified the undertaking's resort to risk purchase.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the objector and in favour of the existence of a concluded contract.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award suffered from absence of reasons or lack of evidence so as to warrant interference.

Analysis: The award referred to the material on record and recorded a sufficient chain of reasoning linking the facts to the conclusions reached. The court held that an arbitrator is not required to write a detailed judgment and that interference is confined to cases where the award is unsupported by evidence or discloses patent legal error. On the record, the award could not be characterised as unreasoned or based on no evidence.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the objector, and the award was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The objections to the arbitral award were rejected, the award was sustained, and the connected proceedings were disposed of consistently with that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not interfere with an arbitral award merely because the reasons are brief, so long as the award is founded on the material before the arbitrator and discloses a rational connection between the evidence and the conclusion; unconditional acceptance within the contractual validity period can crystallise a binding concluded contract despite later attempts at variation.

---