Question $1$

$$

Hardy Construction Ltd contractually agreed to build an office complex for Schtik Corp. Under the terms of that contract, Hardy Construction would incur a financial penalty if it failed to to complete the project on schedule. Hardy Construction hired Laurel Electric Co as a subcontractor to install wiring in the building. The terms of that subcontract required payment of $$50,000$ on completion. Laurel Electric began work immediately but later discovered that it had honestly underestimated the cost of performance. Accordingly, it approached Hardy Construction and stated that unless it was promised an additional $$20,000,$ it simply would not be able to complete the job. Hardy Construction realized $($i$)$ that it could not possibly find a replacement for Laurel Electric on such short notice, and $($ii$)$ that any delay in completion of the project would trigger the penalty provision contained in its contract with Schtick Corp. Hardy Corporation consequently agreed to Laurel Electric's request. Nevertheless, although Laurel Electric subsequently completed its performance on schedule. Hardy Construction refuses to pay more than $$50,000.$ Does it have a right to do so in law? Regardless of its legal position, why might Hardy Construction consider honouring its promise to pay an extra $$20,000?$ Explain whether you believe that the law should more closely reflect business practice.

$$

Question $2$

$$

Erin had always been independent. Shortly before her $17$th birthday, she moved out of her parents' house and bought a used car, which she needed for her fledgling chocolate$-$covered$-$cranberry enterprise. She agreed to pay $$15,000$ for the car, $$5,000$ as a down payment and the rest in monthly instalments over one year. She used the car mostly to make deliveries and pick up supplies. After she had driven the car for three months, the bearings bumped out. Since Erin was in a position to hire a delivery person, she decided that she no longer wanted the car. Having studied the basics of contract law in high school, Erin attempted to return the vehicle to the car dealership, claiming that she had elected to avoid the contract. The dealership refused, having received an opinion from its lawyer that a contract for necessaries is enforceable against a minor. Erin replied that the car was not a necessary, and that the contract was therefore not enforceable. Do you think that Erin will be permitted to avoid her contract with the dealership? Give reasons to support your position.

$$

$$

$$

$$PLEASE ANSWER FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE BASING YOUR ANSWER ON THE CREATION OF CONTRACTS, CONSIDERATION AND PRIVITY., and please answer in the format of

Issue:

Rule of Law:

Application of the rule of law:

Conclusion: