ot the company

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 35 mins (2007-12-27 16:50:15 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OF the company

isn't it more about entering into a new contract and recovering the extra cost from the defaulter than about cancelling ? (you don't need to cancel the old contract because the defaulter is in breach of it under the terms of the solemn declaration)

Because this question has been asked before doesn't mean all or any of the answers are right and usable for the US - nor that anyone has considered re-allocation or re-award of an existing contract, nor contract 'repudiation' by the original contractor's course of conduct or omission.

EN work done on a time and materials basis
*day work*
direct labour force
*force account work*
FR travaux en régie

This has been asked here a thousand times, and there must be 999 entries if you do a "ProZ.com term search".

Basically it means that if your builder decides halfway through building your house, say, that he is not going to finish the job, you are entitled to take on another builder to finish the work. Since it takes time to cost and draw up contracts, and you can't wait because the rainy season is about to start and the roof isn't on yet, and you can't expect your new builder to do the remaining work for the same price as the guy who pulled out (under the terms of the original contract), you will pay the new builder "en régie", which is "on a cost-plus basis", ie you pay him under a system that will inevitably be more expensive than had he worked out his costs and made arrangements in advance. However, this "en régie" work will be billed to the defaulting contractor (aux torts de la société).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2007-12-27 20:26:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/686642
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/545212
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/227539
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/490620
etc. etc. etc. (though admittedly, some folk have opted for "state control", which it undoubtedly can be, but not here.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2007-12-27 22:56:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Allegro Molte Vivace: It's boiler (not because the heating is on) plate to help discourage contractors from, amongst other things, weighting the front end of a contract with all the money and taking off when they've received those initial payments covering far in excess of the value of the work actually done. For example.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2008-01-01 15:13:50 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

AGAIN, "No, no, no !!!!!"

It breaks down thus :

J'affirme sous peine :
- de resiliation de plein droit du marche ou
- de la mise en regie aux torts de la societe,
que ladite societe ...

So it is NOT the cost-plus contract that is cancelled. Quite the opposite!

Remember that it is the CONTRACTOR talking here, making a statement which, should it be untrue, will expose him to (either) i) cancellation of the contract he has undertaken to perform or ii)letting of the work to a third-party contractor on a cost-plus basis, at the (original) contractor's expense.

See my note to Asker, above. A bit about the cost being liable to exceed the original contract price can be (and generally is) added, but I don't think it is actually explicit in the source term.