翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Penguin Books Ltd ・ R v Perka ・ R v Peverett ・ R v Plant ・ R v Powley ・ R v Prince ・ R v Pritchard ・ R v Prosper ・ R v Quick ・ R v Rahey ・ R v Reed ・ R v Registrar General, ex p Segerdal ・ R v Richards ・ R v Richardson ・ R v Rodgers ・ R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd ・ R v Ruzic ・ R v Ryan ・ R v S (RD) ・ R v Saibene ・ R v Sansregret ・ R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool ・ R v Sault Ste-Marie (City of) ・ R v Savage ・ R v Schoombie ・ R v Schoonwinkel ・ R v Seaboyer ・ R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith ・ R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 1) ・ R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2) Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd ''R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd'', of 1981 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the law of tendering for contracts. The case concerned the issue of whether the acceptance of a call for tenders for a construction job could constitute a binding contract. The Court held that indeed in many cases the submission of an offer in response to a call for tenders constitutes a contract separate from the eventual contract for the construction. With the release of the decision, the tendering process practiced in Canada was fundamentally changed.〔Sandori, Paul and William M. Pigott, Bidding and Tendering: What is the Law? 3rd ed. (Markham, ON: LexisNexis, 2004).〕 ==Background== A call for tenders was sent out requiring a deposit of $150,000 which would be lost if the tendered offer was withdrawn. Ron Engineering submitted an offer along with the required deposit in the form of a certified cheque. The submitted tenders were opened by the owner and Ron Engineering was the low bidder by a substantial margin. It was then discovered that the price on the tender documents was far lower than the price that Ron Engineering had intended to submit, and that they had made a mistake in calculating their total bid price. They informed the owner of the mistake and tried to have the offer changed. The change was refused, the contract was given to another company, and the owner kept Ron Engineering's bid deposit. Ron Engineering sued to get their deposit back. The owner counter-claimed for costs incurred as a result of having to go with a different bidder. At trial the counter-claim was dismissed but it was held that the owner was entitled to keep the deposit. The Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the trial decision and held, relying on the contractual doctrine of mistake, that Ron Engineering was entitled to get its deposit back. The owner appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.