of fair dealing; and (2) violations, during the bidding process, of 48 C.F.R. (FAR) § 15.610(d) (1984) prohibiting auction techniques. One of our predecessor courts, the United States Court of Claims, has applied the equitable principle of contract reformation when a contract has been written in violation of a law or regulation enacted for the benefit of prospective contractors. CRF-A Joint Venture, Etc. v. United States, 624 F.2d 1054, 1061-62, 224 Ct. Cl. 312, 324-26 (1980) (treating contracting officer’s illegal requirement that first article samples be converted to production quality radio transmitters as an exercise of contract’s option provision entitling contractor to increased payments); Applied Devices Corp. v. United States, 591 F.2d 635, 640-41, 219 Ct.Cl. 109, 119-20 (1979) (<HOLDING>). These cases are binding precedent. South
holding that jury charge in juvenile case warranted fundamentalerror review and analyzing whether charge violated due process holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge holding contractor was entitled to reformation of contracts cancellation charge term because government had violated regulation in calculating charge holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence