answer questions based on IRAC METHOD. ISSUE RULE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION $1.$ Sippy was thinking of buying Christich's house. He noticed watermarks on the ceiling, but the agent showing the house stated that the roof had been repaired and was in good condition. Sippy was not told that the roof still leaked and that the repairs had not been able to stop the leaking. Sippy bought the house.$$Some time later, heavy rains caused water to leak into the house, and Sippy claimed that Christich was guilty of fraud. Was he correct? $[$Sippy v Christich, $609$ P$2$d $204($Kan App$)]2.$ Pileggi owed Young money. Young threatened to bring suit against Pileggi for the amount due. Pileggi feared the embarrassment of being sued and the possibility that he might be thrown into bankruptcy. To avoid being sued, Pileggi executed a promissory note to pay Young the amount due. He later asserted that the note was not binding because he had executed it under duress. Is this defense valid? $[$Young v Pileggi, $455$ A$2$d

$1228($Pa Super$)]$