a) In Shakespeares play, the Merchant of Venice, Antonio guarantees a loan to help his friend Bassanio and agrees that, if the loan is not repaid within three months, he will allow the lender to take a pound of his flesh. When he defaults, the lender demands his pound of flesh but Portia saves Antonios life by arguing in court that, while the lender may be entitled to his pound of flesh, the contract does not allow him to shed any of Antonios blood. He may, therefore remove the flesh if only no blood is spilt. Given the modern-day Australian law regarding implied terms, would Portias argument succeed today? In your answer you must state the relevant rule and cite the relevant case.

b) With reference to a relevant case, explain the hypothetical circumstances where the plaintiff in LEstrange v Graucob may have been successful