Florida International University Law Cases Paper I have Final Assignment that’s due in 24 hours. So, it’s 3 questions and I need to answer them. The limit

Florida International University Law Cases Paper I have Final Assignment that’s due in 24 hours. So, it’s 3 questions and I need to answer them. The limit of per answer is 900 words. Please, if someone can help me! Thanks! QUESTION 1
Wiremu operates a small business selling natural health products. He recently heard about one of the
latest trends – an expensive new organic herbal tea called T4.
While looking through a trade magazine Wiremu saw an advertisement, promoting the supply of T4 by a
company called Eaze Supplies. The advertisement stated, amongst other things, “Great Offer” and
“Prices start at $100 per kg”.
Wiremu phoned up Eaze Supplies and spoke to Sally who was Head of Sales, and asked whether Eaze
Supplies would be able to fill an order for a regular supply of T4. Wiremu told Sally he wanted the tea
packed in 0.5kg packets and suggested the supply of 100 packets each week. (Nothing was specifically
said about the price but Wiremu assumed the price would be based on the price stated in the
advertisement, which worked out at $5000 per 100 packets.)
Wiremu also told Sally that he must receive the order Monday of each week since he was expecting a
high demand, had limited storage space, and Monday would be his weekly time for organizing his stock.
Sally told Wiremu that she needed to do some inventory checks and would get back to him.
After 3 weeks, there was no response from Sally, so Wiremu called Sally again to enquire whether Eaze
Supplies could supply him with the requested T4. Sally responded by saying, “Oh yeah… silly me… it
completely slipped my mind. Sure no problem. However, we are closed on Mondays so the T4 would
have to be sent and delivered on Tuesdays. How does $6000 per 100 packets sound?” In response
Wiremu answered, “Mmmm, geee I don’t know. That might affect my entire business scheme. But I
guess it could work.”
Sally then suggested to Wiremu that they both agree to do this but decide on the exact terms when
Wiremu had worked out the precise details of his business plan, since he sounded a bit confused and
uncertain. Wiremu agreed.
Over the next few days, a friend of Wiremu gave him some inside information about an exceptionally
cheap supplier of bulk speciality tea grown in Malaysia. Wiremu immediately called up the New Zealand
supplier, MST Ltd, and asked if they could supply T4 for 12 months. MST Ltd accept without hesitation,
offering $5000 per 100 packets. Wiremu replied, “Excellent that is exactly what I need.” Wiremu and
MST Ltd agreed that 100 packets of T4 would be delivered every week on Monday for a period of 12
months.
Two months later, Sally phonedWiremu looking to conclude their agreement. Wiremu told Sally that he
had changed his mind and no longer wished to order from Eaze Supplies. Sally is furious, and told
Wiremu, “We had a deal! You will be hearing from my lawyer!”
Wiremu, worried about potential legal action, seeks your advice regarding whether he has entered into
a legally binding contract with Eaze Supplies.
REQUIRED:
Advise Wiremu. In advising Wiremu, analyse each stage in this scenario in terms of offer and acceptance, and in addition consider any issues relating to contractual intention. Limit your analysis to any
possible contract between Wiremu and Eaze Supplies.
QUESTION 3
On 21 May 2018 Scott entered into a contract for the purchase of a property (“land”) on the corner of
Morrison and Cormann Streets, North Shore. Settlement under the contract took place on 9 July 2018.
The land was bought for the purpose of redevelopment. Scott would not have concluded the purchase if
he had known that the land would be substantially affected by road widening proposals which had been
approved in principle by Auckland Transport (“AT”), a Council controlled organisation of Auckland
Council in 2017.
On 10 May 2018 his solicitor, Josh, made a telephone call to AT and spoke to Marise in the Property
Department who confirmed that there were no local road widening proposals affecting the land. Josh
identified himself as a solicitor acting on behalf of his client who was a prospective purchaser of the
land.
According to the Head of the Property Department at AT, Christopher, it was common practice to give
information, including information as to the existence of any road widening proposals, orally over the
telephone.
Although the relevant proposals were not formally adopted until February 2019, there was little doubt,
in May 2018, that they would be implemented and would seriously affect the subject land. The
proposals were embodied in a plan in AT’s records.
Josh, as solicitor for Scott, claims that he relied on AT to exercise reasonable care in advising him
whether the land was subject to local road widening proposals. He said that it was reasonable for him to
do so, because AT was able to know better than anyone else whether any such proposals existed, and it
commonly followed the practice of giving information as to that matter when requested.
Whilst Josh did not expressly say what the purchaser intended to do with the land, Scott claims that AT
ought to have known that the road widening, if carried out, would adversely affect the use of the land.
REQUIRED:
Based on the above facts, discuss whether AT may be liable in damages for the tort of negligent
misstatement.
QUESTION 4
The Dedlock Construction Company Limited (“Dedlock”) was incorporated in 2000 under the Companies
Act 1993. Prior to its incorporation, three of its directors had been carrying on business in New Zealand
as building contractors. These were Snagsby Guppy and Krook who were in partnership. The partnership
had just completed a subway under the railway track at Tulkinghorn for KiwiRail, a New Zealand stateowned enterprise responsible for rail operations in New Zealand.
In 2005 KiwiRail was asking for tenders for the construction of a railway line from Summerson to
Carstone, known as the Summerson Line, and the tenders of Snagsby, Guppy and Krook made on behalf
of the partnership (“the firm”) were accepted by KiwiRail. Before tendering, arrangements had been
made by the firm with another building contractor, Caddy, that he should take an interest in the
contract to the extent of one-half if the firm was successful. Dedlock was formed to define their
interests, and its share capital distributed in the proportions agreed: 50-50 between the firm (comprising Snagsby, Guppy and Krook) and Caddy.
The board of directors of Dedlock was comprised of Snagsby, Guppy, Krook and Caddy. Guppy is also
general manager.
Dedlock successfully carried out the work of laying the Summerson Line and the company continued to
tender and obtain a considerable number of other contracts of great value from KiwiRail.
The Vholes contract – a rail electrification contract in South Auckland – is the one which has given rise to
the present dispute. Bucket, a representative of KiwiRail, had arranged most of the contracts between
Dedlock and KiwiRail. Her negotiations had always been either with Snagsby or Guppy – she had never
dealt with Caddy or Krook.
In 2017, due to a disagreement with Caddy, Snagsby, Guppy and Krook decided that they would no
longer continue a business relationship with him.
Whilst still retaining their position as directors and their respective roles in Dedlock, Snagsby and Guppy
proceeded to negotiate with Bucket for the new Vholes contract with KiwiRail, in reality on behalf of the
firm, but in exactly the same manner as they had always acted for Dedlock.
After all the preliminaries of the Vholes contract had been concluded, Snagsby said to Bucket,
“Remember, if we get this contract it is to be the firm, and not Dedlock”.
Caddy had been excluded from all negotiations and discussions even though he was one of the directors of the company – he did not find out about the Vholes contract until it had been signed.
Subsequently Snagsby, Guppy and Krook formed another company called the Honoria Construction
Company Limited (“Honoria”) to carry out the work for the Vholes contract. The contract was accordingly taken over by Honoria by whom the work was carried out and the profits made.
REQUIRED:
Discuss whether there has been a breach of fiduciary duty by Snagsby and Guppy as directors of Dedlock
in relation to the Vholes contract, and if so, what would be an appropriate remedy?

Purchase answer to see full
attachment