With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding contractor was entitled to reformation of contracts cancellation charge term because government had violated regulation in calculating charge
C: holding that jury charge in juvenile case warranted fundamentalerror review and analyzing whether charge violated due process
D: holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge
B.