Nine years ago, Papandreou Financial Services Inc entered into a long-term contract with Merkel Gratuities Ltd. Until recently, both parties performed faithfully, and both were very happy with their arrangements. Last week, however, Merkel alleged that Papandreou had committed various forms of misconduct within the past year. Papandreou has angrily denied all of those allegations, and it insists, on the contrary, that Merkel owes it a great deal of money. Merkel would like to sue Papandreou, but it is worried about several things. First, it is concerned that since the contract is quite old, any legal action would be barred by the passage of time. Second, Merkel is worried that the law may not be on its side. The most important allegation against Papandreou raises a difficult question of law. Different Canadian courts have given different answers to the question. Merkel and Papandreou created and performed their contract in a single province. The courts of that province have not yet addressed the issue. Trial judges in some other provinces have held in favour of parties in Merkel's position. Appellate judges in a third set of provinces have held in favour of parties in Papandreou's position. Third, Merkel is concerned that it does not have all the information that it would need to prove its case, and Papandreou has said that it would never provide that information. Fourth, Merkel knows that lawsuits are expensive. It is worried that if it sues Papandreou, then Papandreou will turn around and sue it. Merkel therefore is concerned that it may have to pay for two completely separate sets of lawyers, two completely separate sets of documents, and so on. Should Merkel really be worried about any of these four issues? Explain your answer.