1. Address the points raised just below the question, in the form of a well written paragraph(10 points) 2. Using what we have learned so far in the course, what area of the law would this fall under . And why? (3 points) 3. Had you been the lawyer for the defendant in the case before this matter went to court, what advice would you have given your client and why? (2 points)

The noise generated from the motors and screeching tires seriously interfered with the plaintiffs' operation of their motel located adjacent to the amusement park. Indicate the nature of the plaintiffs' complaint, the likelihood of success, and what would be an appropriate remedy if they were successful in their action. How would you balance the interests of the two businesses? 3. 369413 Alberta Lid. v. Pocklington (2000), 194 D.L.R. (4th) 109, 271 A.R. 280, (Alta. C.A.); 2000 ABCA 307 (CanLII). Gainers, an Alberta corporation, turned to the provincial government for funding. The agreed-upon terms required Gainers not to sell or dispose of its assets without the prior written consent of its major creditor, the Alberta government. When Gainers fell upon financial difficulty, its sole director, Peter Pocklington, signed a director's resolution trans- ferring certain shares owned by Gainers (valued in the millions) to his own company, Pocklington Holdings Lid., for $100. This transfer took place one day before Alberta gave notice of its intention to exercise its rights under their security agreement. As a result of the share transfer, Gainers was without sufficient resources to repay the government. What is the nature of the creditor's complaint? What tort action is most appropriate in the circumstances? What would be the appropriate remedy