1) Jack works for Stan Douglas Real Estate Agency Inc. One evening, Jim, a client, meets Jack to visit a potential property for purchase. Jack is excited but wants to talk it over with Jim at the local pub. Jim says that he only wants the property if he can get it for 50% of the listing price. Jack states that's very unlikely but agrees to submit an offer anyway. Over a period of approximately two hours, Jack orders and drinks a variety of alcoholic beverages. Shortly after 7 pm, Jack says he will return to the office to submit Jim's offer. Jack offers to give Jim a ride to the parking lot where Jim parked his car before seeing the property. On the way, Jack has an accident which injures Jim. As a result of the accident, Jack is late submitting the offer and someone else buys the property for full price.

• Part 1 - Explain in detail whether Jack is liable for the tort of negligence.?
• Part 2 - Explain in detail whether Jack has any professional liability?

2) Ashley is preparing to open her restaurant and interviewing potential staff at her rented restaurant location. Ashely's landlord, ABC Ltd., has allowed her into the premises before the start of the lease so that she can complete some improvements. Gerald is a tiling contractor whom Ashley has hired to put down a porcelain tile floor, and he has unpacked his tools - including a tile saw-in the middle of the dining room area. When Ashley completes her interview with Shelley, an applicant for the position of hostess, Shelley turns to leave and trips over the tile saw, cutting her leg. Shelley does not want Ashley to know so she does not complain. She does not go to the hospital until three days later after she hears that she did not get the job. The cut is so deep that it requires stitches to close, and the doctor tells Shelley that she should have come to the hospital immediately. Now it will leave a permanent scar. Most Canadian provinces have passed modern legislation addressing this issue. Will Shelley be able to recover damages under the old law? Would Shelley be able to recover damages under the new modern legislation? Please answer the entire question in detail.

3) Mary operates a convenience store, "Mary's Shoppe". It has become a hangout for teenagers. She hired Frank to act as a security guard between the hours of 3 pm and 5 pm, when the store is at its busiest. Mary noticed that a young woman named Shelley, whom she had previously suspected of stealing, was acting suspiciously. She notified Frank, who approached Shelley and said in a loud voice and an accusing tone, "Come here. I've got a few questions to ask you." Shelley realized that Frank was acting on instructions from his employer and shouted over his shoulder at Mary: "If you've got a problem, come over here and speak to me yourself! I'll smack you silly!" At that point, Frank lunged at Shelley in an attempt to restrain her. He grabbed her arm, but she managed to wrestle free and run out of the store. Is Mary's Shoppe liable for any intentional torts?

4) For many years, the Funch Gum company sold product that it called "Aspargum, " a low-calorie gum made from asparagus and other ingredients. Although Aspargum never enjoyed great success in the market, it did prove popular with a small number of people. Clint chewed Aspargum almost daily for nearly 15 years. Clint was diagnosed recently with mouth cancer and has sued Funch. Funch admits that three years ago it was determined that Aspargum increased the chance of getting mouth cancer by 30% in those who chewed Aspargum and increased the chance of getting lung cancer by 80% in those people who smoked and chewed Aspargum. Funch then put warning labels on the gum to make people aware of this risk and asked smokers not to use the product. Clint continued to use the product for the next 5 years after the warning labels were placed on the product. Funch insists Clint's cancer was due to the cigarettes he smoked over 25 years. Studies show smoking cigarettes increases the risk of mouth cancer by 25%. Should Funch be held liable for Clint's mouth cancer?

For each question, state the following

- Issue

- Rules of law

- analysis

- conclusion

Please explain every part of the question in detail. Answer based on Canadian law