body: In Ron Engineering, the supreme court ruled that a "Contract A" is formed when a bidder submits a bid. This seems to imply that Contract A is formed **by** the bidder, not the receiver of that bid, unilaterally. As I understand Ron Engineering, Ron Engineering made a mistake and could not retract their bid. In effect, Ron Engineering was not let out of Contract A.
  
  
  However, as Contract A is usually explained, it protects bidders from poor practice from people receiving bids. For instance, if the receiver does not go with the lowest bid due to other bids having additional terms not spelled out in the original tender, the lowest bidder can sue. This appears to be the complete opposite of the decision in Ron Engineering.
  
  
  So what does Contract A really do, and who is bound by it?
  
  
  
title: In Canada's famous "Ron Engineering" case, what really is protected by Contract A?