Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Moot Court 1 Group 6

    Uploaded by

    huyennlkds170417

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Moot Court 1 Group 6

    Uploaded by

    huyennlkds170417
    4 views5 pages

    Original Title

    Moot Court 1 Group 6 (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views5 pages

    Moot Court 1 Group 6

    Uploaded by

    huyennlkds170417

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    GROUP ASSIGNMENT

    Course LAW102 - Business Law and Ethics Fundamentals

    Lecturer Tran Thi Mai Sau

    Class MKT17B01

    Group 6

    Assignment Title Moot Court 1

    GROUP INFORMATION

    Name Roll Number

    Nguyễn Thị Hoài Vân DS170410

    Nguyễn Thị Thuý Nga DS170415

    Trịnh Thị Thảo Vân DS170565

    Nguyễn Lê Khánh Huyền DS170417

    Lê Thị Quỳnh Như DS170411

    Bùi Thanh Thương DS170409

    I. Defendant States

    Your Honour, esteemed members of the court

    I stand before you today as the defendant in the Belle River Community Arena case. My
    name is Nguyen Le Khanh Huyen, I represent the Water Resources Committee. Responsible
    for developing bidding documents, evaluating the capacity of brass contractors, selecting
    brass contractors, and supervising project construction.

    In this matter, we believe that the judgment of the First Instance Court is erroneous. We have
    the right to retain the deposit by the provisions of "Information for Bidders". Retaining the
    deposit in this case is completely consistent with the law and business ethics. We reserve the
    right to protect our interests and ensure fairness in the bidding process.

    We humbly request the court's impartial consideration of the evidence and arguments that we
    will present, underscoring our unwavering dedication to the safety of the public and strict
    adherence to regulatory standards.
    II. The defendant's lawyer presented
    - Introduction:

    May it please the court,

    My name is Trinh Thi Thao Van and besides is Nguyen Thi Thuy Nga, and we have the honor
    of representing appellants in this case, referenced as [1981] 1 S.C.R. 111, 13 B.L.R. 72, 119
    D.L.R. (3d) 267, 35 N.R. 40

    - Case Overview:

    + Background:

    This case revolves around a dispute regarding: A contractor submitted a bid and a deposit of
    USD 150,000 to the Ontario Water Commission. The terms stated that if the bid was
    withdrawn before being reviewed, the commission could retain the deposit. However, before
    the review, the contractor discovered errors in the bid and decided to withdraw it.
    Consequently, the Ontario Water Commission declared its right to retain the deposit. The key
    issues we are addressing today include the petition of the appellant:
    1. The appeal should be accepted because, in the bidding documents, there is no
    provision protecting the contractor when the investor fails to comply with the
    contract, causing a disadvantage to the contractor.
    2. The bidding process and contract closure by investors
    3. Why can't participants withdraw their deposits after bidding opens?

    + Facts:

    To provide context, allow me to summarize the essential facts of the case:


    - On 4th July of 1972, Investors organize bidding calls. Contractors have submitted bids and
    deposited $150k with the investor under the condition that after completing the contract, the
    deposit will be refunded along with a payment bond and performance bond. After opening
    the bids, participants discovered an issue - $750,058 was overlooked in the total bid amount.
    Therefore, the bidding participant wants to withdraw the bid documents along with the
    deposit. However, the bidding invitation states that if the bid documents are withdrawn, or the
    agreement is not fulfilled within a certain period, the committee may retain the deposit. The
    contractor offered to withdraw the bid without penalty due to the discovery of errors in the
    bid documents that the offer was not accepted.
    - The appellants, Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario and the Water Resources
    Commission, hired engineers to estimate the project cost. Upon receiving notice of an error
    in the bid from the contractor, the owner sent a construction contract for signature, but the
    contractor refused. The owner decided to retain the deposit and consider the bid of the second
    lowest bidder.
    - Closing:

    Thank you, Your Honor, for your time and consideration. We are confident that the facts of
    this case and the applicable law will lead to a just and favorable outcome for Her Majesty
    The Queen in right of Ontario and the Water Resources Commission.

    II. Defendant's lawyer defends


    1. Court information

    The Defendant, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario and the Water Resources
    Commission
    The Plaintiff, Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd.

    Introduction:

    Your Honour, B. Johnston, Q.C., and M. Fleishman, a representative for the Defendant in this
    matter. We submit that the appeal was not capable of being accepted and the decision of the
    trial judge was upheld. The Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the tender deposit is without
    merit and contradicts established principles of Canadian contract law.

    Argument:

    The Plaintiff's argument hinges on the notion that their unilateral mistake renders the entire
    tender process void, allowing them to reclaim their deposit despite the clear terms outlined in
    the tender documents. We respectfully disagree.

    2. Existence of Contract A:
    The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in this very case established the existence of a
    unilateral contract, referred to as "Contract A," which arose upon the submission of the
    tender.
    This contract included the Plaintiff’s irrevocable offer, binding them to the submitted price
    for the specified period.
    The tender deposit served as consideration for the irrevocability of this offer, as confirmed by
    Estey J. in the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    3. Mistake Not Affecting Contract A:


    The Plaintiff’s calculation error, while regrettable, does not negate Contract A's formation or
    its terms.
    The Plaintiff intended to submit the tender in the exact form received by the Defendant.
    The error was internal to the Plaintiff’s bidding process and not apparent on the tender's face,
    making it a latent and not a patent mistake.
    The case law is clear: a unilateral mistake does not automatically invalidate a contract,
    particularly where the other party was unaware of the error.

    4. Belle River Distinction:


    The Plaintiff's reliance on Belle River Community Arena Inc. v. W.J.C. Kaufmann Co. Ltd. is
    misplaced.
    In Belle River, the withdrawal occurred before any acceptance, unlike the present case where
    the Plaintiff attempted to withdraw after the tender opening.
    Further, Belle River dealt with a mistake affecting a fundamental term of the contract,
    whereas here, the error solely concerned the calculation of the final bid amount.

    5. Forfeiture Clause Enforceable:


    The "Information for Tenderers" clearly outlines the consequences of failing to execute the
    construction contract within the stipulated time frame.
    The Plaintiff’s argument regarding the blank completion date is a red herring. The contract
    incorporated the Plaintiff's proposed 90-week timeframe, and any omission could have been
    easily rectified by the Plaintiff during the execution process.

    6. Integrity of the Bidding System:


    Allowing Plaintiff to reclaim their deposit based solely on their internal error would
    undermine the integrity of the tendering process.
    Contractors would be incentivized to submit artificially low bids, knowing they could later
    retract their offers citing errors, thereby gaining an unfair advantage.

    Evidence:

    We refer to the submitted tender documents, specifically the "Information for Tenderers,"
    which clearly outlines the tender deposit requirements and consequences of failing to execute
    the contract.
    We also refer to Plaintiff’s internal documents and communications, highlighting the intended
    submission of the bid in the form received by Defendant.

    Canadian Law Provisions:

    Contract Law Principles: Canadian contract law recognizes the formation of a binding
    contract upon acceptance of an offer, even in cases of unilateral mistake where the mistake is
    not known to the other party.

    Conclusion:

    The Plaintiff's attempt to retract their offer and reclaim the tender deposit contradicts
    established Canadian contract law and the principles of fairness inherent in the tendering
    process. Defendant acted in good faith, relying on Plaintiff's submitted bid and the terms
    outlined in the tender documents. We urge the Court to uphold the trial judge's decision and
    dismiss the appeal with costs.
    Thank you, Your Honour.

    Questions for The Plaintiff:

    1. Why did you fail to include the $750,058 in your initial bid calculation?
    2. Why did you choose to send a telex requesting withdrawal "without penalty" instead
    of stating outright that you had made a mistake and couldn't fulfill the bid?
    3. Did you consider the possibility that the owner might accept your bid despite your
    notice of the error?
    4. Given the circumstances, why did you refuse to sign the construction contract as
    presented by the owner?
    5. Do you believe that the owner's actions in accepting your bid and subsequently
    attempting to forfeit your deposit were fair and reasonable?

    You might also like