Assignment is due one (1) week from the date upon which it is distributed to the class. Late Assignments shall be penalized at the rate of 10% per day up to a maximum of one (1) week following the due date. Assignments handed in later than one (1) week will not be accepted. Question 1 Cleo wanted to purchase a lot from Patrick to build a house in Waverley, several kilometres north of Orillia. Cleo lives in Orillia and Patrick lives in Waverley. In May, Cleo went to Waverley and offered Patrick $150,000.00 for the property. Patrick refused the offer. On July 7 Cleo went again to see Patrick, and this time Patrick offered to sell the property for $175,000.00 and said he would hold the offer open for 14 days at that price. They shook hands and Cleo left. Late in the evening of July 8, another person offered Patrick $200,000.00 for the property. Patrick accepted. The next morning at about 10:30 a.m., Patrick went to Cleo's home and knocked on the door. No one answered and he left a letter stating, "Please take notice that my offer to you of July 7 has lapsed." Cleo did not see the letter until he came home for lunch at 12:30 p.m. He was not at home earlier because he had an appointment with his lawyer at 9:30 a.m. At that meeting Cleo had requested that his lawyer write to Patrick as follows: "I am instructed by Cleo to accept your offer of July 7, to sell at the price of $175,000.00. Kindly have the contract prepared and forwarded to me." This letter was handed to a courier at 10:00 a.m. that morning (July 9) and delivered to Patrick at 2:00 p.m. When Patrick received it, he replied stating that the offer was no longer valid. Cleo replied that he had a valid option agreement and considered there was now a binding agreement. Required: Discuss the issues that will be raised by the parties, the applicable legal principles and likely result of the legal action. Question 2 Andrew and Erica are friends who are both enrolled in ACTG 2P40. On January 10, Andrew and Erica were discussing the sudden rise in value of shares of GME, a corporation listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The shares had risen from $10.00 per share on January 7 to $40.00 per share and were being widely promoted on READ-IT, a stock analysis website. Erica did not have a trading account and asked Andrew if he had any excess shares in his account that he would sell to her. Andrew offered to sell her 100 shares for $40.00 per share. Erica said she would let him know as soon as possible. On January 12, Erica told Andrew that she would accept his offer and delivered a cheque to him for $4,000.00. Andrew refused to accept the cheque since the shares were now trading for $42.00 per share.accept work from any existing client of the firm or any referrals from any accountant who provided services to the firm's clients." Within a few days of terminating his employment with Book LLP, Patrick advised the firm's partners that he considered the restrictive covenant illegal and unenforceable and that he intended to open his own office as a tax lawyer within North York, part of Metropolitan Toronto, but which was 10 kilometres from the offices of Book LLP. Book LLP then sued Patrick to obtain an injunction to restrain him from breaking the contract and opening the office. Required: Identify the legal issues and state the principles that would affect the decision. Is there any additional information which would be relevant to your assessment of this case? What is the likely outcome of the application? WErica commences an action against Andrew claiming that they have a valid contract. One week later the shares dropped to $16.00 per share. Andrew now agrees that there is a binding contract and sues Erica when she refuses to pay. Erica now claims that there is no contract and that in any event a contract cannot be enforced against her since she is only 17 and it was a "friendly" deal. Required: Discuss the applicable legal principles and advise whether there is an enforceable contract and, if so, on what terms. Does it make a difference whether the value of the shares increases or decreases? Question 3 During the pandemic of 2020, the government imposed a stay at home order requiring everyone to stay at home except for essential trips. Brad operated a small ice cream and candy shop in Niagara- on-the-Lake. Once the order was issued he had virtually no customers since no tourists could come to the Town. At the end of the first month he told his landlord, Patrick, that he would likely need to declare bankruptcy because he could not pay the rent. Patrick encouraged him to stay and said that he would reduce the rent from $8,000.00 to $2,000.00 per month to help him out. Brad paid Patrick $2,000.00 and with loans from family members managed to do so each month. In the seventh month the pandemic was declared to be over and the stay at home order was rescinded. Brad went to Patrick's office with a big smile and gave him a cheque for $8,000.00. Patrick said "Where is the $36,000.00 for the other 6 months"? Brad was surprised and said "That rent was forgiven because of the pandemic". Patrick replied "Of course not, we still have a valid lease that requires payments of $8,000.00 per month. You still owe me the rent". Brad claims that he would have closed the store and declared bankruptcy 6 months earlier if Patrick had not promised to reduce the rent. He commences an action to enforce Patrick's promises. Required: Discuss the legal issues that will be raised by the parties with reference to the applicable principles. What is the likely result? Question 4 Patrick, a lawyer, was hired by Book LLP, a firm of lawyers in downtown Toronto. Patrick worked with the firm for 15 years and acquired an expert knowledge of tax law and made several connections with prominent accounting firms that referred work to Book LLP. Patrick worked almost entirely in the offices of the firm, the partners handled most negotiations with the firm's clients and referred the work to Patrick. Patrick's contract of employment stated that for a period of two (2) years after the termination of his employment "the employee will not engage in the professional practice of tax law either alone or in association with or as an employee of any person or firm within Metropolitan Toronto and will not 2