Developer planned to construct a shopping center in Muyenga tank hill and solici

Developer planned to construct a shopping center in Muyenga tank hill and solicited bids from contractors. Contractor A desired to bid on the project and sent an email to various subcontractors soliciting bids. The e-mail instructed that all subcontractors’ bids must be delivered in writing to Contractor A’s office by 3:00 PM on October 15. At 2:45 PM on October 15, Peter Matovu hand-delivered a bid for asphalt paving work in the amount of Ugx 200,000,000. Matovu’s bid was the lowest and Contractor A used it in computing its final bid. The next lowest bids were Ugx 315,000,000 and 325,000,000. Later that day, Matovu realized he had made a clerical error in calculating his cost of materials and immediately called Contractor A to advise he was changing his bid to 300,000,000. Contractor A advised Matovu it was too late as the final bid had already been submitted. Matovu refused to perform the work and Contractor A was forced to use the next lowest bidder. Developer awarded the general contract to Contractor A to build the shopping center for $5 million. The general contract provided: “This contract constitutes the parties’ entire agreement. This contract cannot be amended, modified, or added to in any respect except by a writing signed by both parties.” During construction, a sink hole opened up under the property and caused a portion of the partially completed structure to collapse. Neither Contractor A nor Developer had sink hole insurance. Contractor A estimated it would cost $1 million to replace the damaged portion. Contractor A called Developer. During their phone conversation, Contractor A stated that he would not finish the project unless Developer promised to pay Contractor A an additional $1 million. Developer agreed. Thirteen months after breaking ground, Contractor A completed the shopping center. Developer refused to pay Contractor A any amount over $5 million. Contractor A wants to sue Developer. Contractor A also wants to sue Matovu for Ugx 115,000,000 the difference between the amount of Matovu’s original bid and the amount Contractor A had to pay for the paving work. Draft a memorandum that discusses the following issues: 1. Contractor A’s rights, if any, against Developer and any defenses. 2. Contractor A’s rights, if any, against Matovu and any defenses