Complainant’s Position
The analysis of Ron engineering case 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. Ron engineering wanted their refund for 150,000$ deposit they did but afterwards realize they made a mistake. A call for tenders was sent out in order to get the $150,000 back which would be lost if the tendered offer was withdrawn.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. When the owner received the submitted papers and opened them, he realize that Ron Engineering was the low bidder by a substantial margin. …show more content…
They wanted to make to fix it immediately and so they informed the owner about the problem in order to get the offer changed. The change was refused, the contract was given to another company, and the owner decide to keep Ron Engineering's deposit. Unpleased with what the owner did to them despite telling them about the mistake that occurred, Ron engineering sued to get their money back. The owner counter-claimed for costs incurred as a result of having to go with a different competitor. During the 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. There were two contracts involve during this case, Contract A: a unilateral contract arising automatically upon the submission of a tender. Secondly, Contract B - the contract awarded upon …show more content…
The tender, even though it’s the product of a mistaken calculation, could be subject to the terms and conditions of contract A resulting in the forfeiture of the deposit. There was no error in the sense that the contractor did not intend to submit the tender in its form and substance. Secondly, there was no principle in law under which the tender caused incapable of acceptance by the appellant. No mistake existed which affected the coming into being of contract A. The effect of a mistake upon the formation, enforceability or interpretation of a subsequent construction contract need to not be considered in this case. The issue did not concern the law of mistake but the application of the forfeiture provisions contained in the tender documents. There were some conditions needed to be meet in order to get a refund of the deposit. Unfortunately, the conditions did not meet so they didn’t get the deposit back. The exclusion by the owner to insert the number of weeks specified by the tender in the appropriate blank in the contract had no bearing on the rights of the parties to the appeal and did not prevent the owner from keeping the deposit, according to the
The analysis of Ron engineering case 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. Ron engineering wanted their refund for 150,000$ deposit they did but afterwards realize they made a mistake. A call for tenders was sent out in order to get the $150,000 back 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. When the owner received the submitted papers and opened them, he realize that Ron Engineering was the low bidder by a substantial margin. …show more content…
They wanted to make to fix it immediately and so they informed the owner about the problem in order to get the offer changed. The change was refused, the contract was given to another company, and the owner decide to keep Ron Engineering's deposit. Unpleased with what the owner did to them despite telling them about the mistake that occurred, Ron engineering sued to get their money back. The owner counter-claimed for costs incurred as a result of having to go with a different competitor. During the 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. There were two contracts involve during this case, Contract A: a unilateral contract arising automatically upon the submission of a tender. Secondly, Contract B - the contract awarded upon …show more content…
The tender, even though it’s the product of a mistaken calculation, could be subject to the terms and conditions of contract A resulting in the forfeiture of the deposit. There was no error in the sense that the contractor did not intend to submit the tender in its form and substance. Secondly, there was no principle in law under which the tender caused incapable of acceptance by the appellant. No mistake existed which affected the coming into being of contract A. The effect of a mistake upon the formation, enforceability or interpretation of a subsequent construction contract need to not be considered in this case. The issue did not concern the law of mistake but the application of the forfeiture provisions contained in the tender documents. There were some conditions needed to be meet in order to get a refund of the deposit. Unfortunately, the conditions did not meet so they didn’t get the deposit back. The exclusion by the owner to insert the number of weeks specified by the tender in the appropriate blank in the contract had no bearing on the rights of the parties to the appeal and did not prevent the owner from keeping the deposit, according to the