$1*$ Case Summary:Parker, a real estate developer, entered into a contract with Evergreen Realty Development to purchase a plot of land for the construction of a residential complex. The contract stipulated specific timelines for payment and construction milestones. However, unforeseen issues arose during the development process, leading to disputes between the parties. Dispute:Evergreen Realty Development accused Parker of breaching the contract by failing to make timely payments and complete the construction within the agreed$-$upon timeframe. Parker countered by claiming that the delays were due to factors beyond his control, such as zoning complications and material shortages. Key Issues: Whether Parker's delays and payment defaults constituted a breach of contract.Whether the circumstances leading to the delays and defaults qualify as valid excuses for non$-$performance.What remedies are available to Evergreen Realty Development if a breach occurred, and what defenses can Parker assert. Legal Analysis: Competing Interests: Evergreen Realty Development: They are interested in completing the sale of the land and ensuring timely payments to fulfill their financial obligations and project timelines.Parker: He seeks to complete the construction project within a reasonable timeframe and address the unforeseen challenges to avoid legal consequences and financial losses. Court Decision: The court determined that while Parker faced legitimate challenges beyond his control, he failed to take adequate measures to mitigate the delays and defaults. However, the court also recognized Evergreen Realty Development's obligation to reasonably accommodate unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the court ordered Parker to pay compensation for the delays and fulfill his payment obligations within revised timelines, while granting him an extension to complete the construction project. Assignment Questions: $1.$ Summarize the facts of the case, including the parties involved, the nature of the dispute, and the key issues raised$\mathrm{.}2.$ Identify and analyze the competing interests presented in the case, focusing on the rights of both parties involved$\mathrm{.}3.$ Discuss relevant legal principles, such as breach of contract, performance excuses, and available remedies, with reference to applicable case law or statutes$\mathrm{.}4.$ Present the court's decision and reasoning behind it$,$ explaining how the court balanced the competing interests and resolved the dispute$\mathrm{.}5.$ Reflect on the implications of the court's decision for both parties involved and discuss broader lessons learned regarding contract management and dispute resolution in real estate development projects. $2*$ Mekan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ vs$.$ TANFORD Property Management Inc. Case Summary:Mekan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ purchased commercial bakery equipment, including a dough mixer and oven, on an installment plan for use in leased commercial premises. The equipment supplier retained title until full payment. However, the bakery faced financial difficulties and ceased payments for both the equipment and the leased premises. Dispute:TANFORD Property Management Inc., the owner of the leased premises, attempted to exercise the right to seize the cooking equipment due to non$-$payment of rent. Simultaneously, Mecan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ sought to repossess its goods due to non$-$payment by the bakery. Key Issues: Whether Tanford Property Management Inc. had the right to seize the cooking equipment for non$-$payment of rent.Whether Mecan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ had the right to repossess its goods due to non$-$payment by the bakery.How the court would reconcile the competing interests of the parties involved.Legal Analysis: Court Decision: The court determined that while DMI Property Management Inc. had the right to seize property for non$-$payment of rent, the retention of title clause in the credit agreement between Emcan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ and the bakery prevailed. Therefore, DMI Property Management Inc. could only exercise its right to seize the cooking equipment after paying the balance due to Emcan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.1.$ Summarize the facts of the case, including the parties involved, the nature of the dispute, and the key issues raised$\mathrm{.}2.$ Analyze the competing interests of Tanford Property Management Inc. and Mekan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.,$ focusing on their respective rights and obligations$\mathrm{.}3.$ Discuss the relevant legal principles applied by the court in resolving the dispute, including the interpretation of lease agreements and retention of title clauses$\mathrm{.}4.$ Present the court's decision and reasoning behind it$,$ explaining how the court reconciled the competing claims of the parties involved$\mathrm{.}5.$ Reflect on the implications of the court's decision for both landlords and suppliers in commercial lease situations, and discuss broader lessons learned regarding property rights and contractual arrangements. $3*$ Case Summary:Vandals destroyed a bench located in a public park belonging to the municipality. The vandalism resulted in damage to public property and raised legal questions regarding liability and enforcement.Dispute:The municipality seeks legal recourse against the vandals for the destruction of public property. The vandals may face criminal charges under the Criminal Code of Canada for their actions. Additionally, the municipality may pursue civil claims to recover damages for the cost of repairs or replacement of the bench.Key Issues:Determining the appropriate legal action against the vandals: criminal prosecution or civil litigation.Assessing the potential remedies available to the municipality for the damage caused by the vandalism.Analyzing the implications of the case for public property management and legal responsibilities of municipalities.. Assignment Questions:$1.$ Summarize the facts of the case, including the incident of vandalism, the parties involved, and the legal issues raised$\mathrm{.}2.$ Analyze the potential legal actions available to the municipality against the vandals, including criminal prosecution and civil litigation$\mathrm{.}3.$ Discuss the advantages of alternative dispute resolution methods for parties involved in civil cases, with specific reference to the benefits $.\mathrm{.}4.$ Explain the importance of understanding the law for businesses today, emphasizing its role in risk management, compliance, and legal protection$\mathrm{.}5.$ Determine whether the destruction of the bench in the public park constitutes a question of public or private law, providing reasoning for your answer based on legal principles and precedents.