Hi$,$ I need help in this studycase, please answer all the Question.

Thank You very much..

Case

Reliance Corporation lost the contract bidding contest to construct the Mall at Farmer$$s Market for the city of St$.$ Paul to Megatron Associates. When the city opened the sealed bids, Megatron appeared to be the clear winner. But Megatron discovered that it had bid $$619,200$ lower than it had intended due to a clerical error. Bid$-$ ding instructions included the following: $$A bid may not be modified, withdrawn, or canceled by the Bidder for a period of sixty $(60)$ days following the time and date designated for the receipt of bids, and each Bid$-$ der so agrees in submitting a bid.$$ Nevertheless, the city allowed Megatron to change its bid, raising it to cover not only the $$619,200$ error but adding $$89,211$ more. Still, Megatron$$s raised bid was lower than Reliance$$s bid, and the city awarded Megatron the contract for $$8,041,411.$ State common law long held that a contract entered into in violation of competitive bidding laws is void. The state supreme court had previously stated that a competitive bidding contract is void even $$without any showing of actual fraud or an intent to commit fraud, if a procedure has been followed which emasculates the safeguards of competitive bidding.$$

CASE QUESTIONS

$1$a$.$ The city claimed that it benefited the public by allowing the bid change because it resulted in monetary savings for the city. Does this explanation justify the city$$s disregard of established precedent? Can the court of appeals disregard established state precedent? $(5$ marks$)$

$1$b$.$ Megatron was able to prove that its original bid was wrong due to a legitimate clerical error. Should this have mattered? $(5$marks$)$

$1$c$.$ Why is it good policy to not permit amendments of bids in competitive bidding situations? $(5$marks$)$

Q$2.$ Recently, the government of UAE came up with an announcement that any private company with more than $50$ employees in UAE will now have to hire Emirati citizens up to $10\%$ of their total workforce. The government has also directed all companies to hire the Emirati citizens in white color job $($management jobs$).$ In your view $,$ how do you think the decision will have implications on the private company owners. Explain your answer keeping in mind the different aspects of legal remedies available to the government or the private owners if its challenged in court for the particular law which will come into effect from January $01,2023.(10$ marks$)$