1. Federal Question: Nutrilab, Inc., manufactures and markets a product known as Starch Blockers. The purpose of the product is to block the human body's digestion of starch as an aid in controlling weight. The U.S. FDA classified Starch Blockers as a drug and requested that it be removed from the market until the FDA approved its use. The FDA claimed that it had the right to classify new products as drugs and prevent their distribution until their safety is determined.Nutrilab disputed the FDA's decision and wanted to bring suit to halt the FDA's actions. Do the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear this case? Nutrilab, Inc. v. Schweiker, 713 F.2d 335, Web 1983 U.S. App. Lexis 25121 (United States Court of Appeals for the SeventhCircuit) Complete this case study using the IRAC format add at list 5 references

2. Negligence: Curtis R. Wilhelm owned beehives and kept the hives on property he owned. John Black, who operated a honeybee business, contracted to purchase some beehives from Wilhelm. Black employed Santos Flores, Sr. to help him pick up the beehives from Wilhelm. Black provided Flores with a protective suit to wear while picking up the beehives. Neither Wilhelm nor Black informed Flores of the danger of working with bees. After picking up beehives from Wilhelm's home, Black and Flores drove to remote property owned by Wilhelm to pick up other beehives. Flores opened the veil on his protective suit. After loading one beehive onto the truck, Flores started staggering and yelling for help. Flores sustained several bee stings, suffered anaphylactic shock reaction, and died before an ambulance could reach him. Flores's wife and children sued Wilhelm and Black for negligence for failing to warn Flores of the dangers of working with beehives and the possibility of dying of anaphylactic shock if stung by a bee. Did Wilhelm act negligently by failing to warn Flores of the dangers of working with beehives? Wilhelm v. Flores, 133 S.W.3d 726, Web 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 9335 (Court of AppealsofTexas) Complete this case study using the IRAC format add at list 5 references 3. Agreement Wilbert Heikkila listed eight parcels of real property for sale. David McLaughlin submitted written offers to purchase three of the parcels. Three printed purchase agreements were prepared and submitted to Heikkila, with three earnest-money checks from McLaughlin. Writing on the purchase agreements, Heikkila changed the price of one parcel from $145,000 to $150,000, the price of another parcel from $32,000 to $45,000, and the price of the third parcel from $175,000 to $179,000. Heikkila also changed the closing dates on all three of the properties, added a reservation of mineral rights to all three, and signed the purchase agreements. McLaughlin did not sign the purchase agreements to accept the changes before Heikkila withdrew his offer to sell. McLaughlin sued to compel specific performance of the purchase agreements under the terms of the agreements before Heikkila withdrew his offer. The court granted Heikkila's motion to dismiss McLaughlin's claim. McLaughlin appealed. Does a contract to convey real property exist between Heikkila and McLaughlin? McLaughlin v. Heikkila, 697 N. W.2d 231, Web 2005 Minn. App. Lexis 591 (Court of AppealsofMinnesota) Complete this case study using the IRAC format add at list 5 references