Background: Copley Place Associates-owners of the Copley Mall in Back Bay-announced that a 52-story, 542-unit, condominium building would be built at the Stuart St. and Dartmouth St. entrance to the Copley mall in 2015. The expected cost of the entire project was $500 million which include the community improvement commitments. The architects (McNamara Salvia) summarize the tower as follows: " The Copley Place Tower is a residential tower soaring 636 feet into Boston's Back Bay skyline. The 52-story structure was planned to be built above and around the previously existing Neiman Marcus store at the Copley Place Mall. The tower includes 109 ultra-luxury condominiums and 433 luxury apartment units, as well as 115,000 SF of expanded retail and restaurant space in an all-season glass enclosed atrium. Amenities consist of a seventh-floor sky lobby and deck, sixth-floor pool and an underground parking garage. " Neiman Marcus is an 'anchor' store of the mall, occupying 115,951 square feet (pre-construction). The tower project required Neiman Marcus to reduce and alter their store in the mall until the project's completion in exchange for benefits: a larger and modern store, a contribution towards renovations, renewed lease terms, as well as concierge service to the condo residents to be realized after the condo tower was completed. Please read the sources for more details on the completed tower project. Neiman Marcus and Copley Place Associates signed a new lease agreement (the 'Fifth Amendment') covering the timeframe from when construction of the tower project was announced to when the updated Neiman Marcus store (and the tower project) would be complete. 1In 2016, Copley Place Associates abandoned the tower project. After attempting to renew lease terms, and then entering arbitration, Neiman Marcus sues for breach of contract (the lease agreement) in 2022, seeking damages of $50 million. Additional information: The promisee can litigate following arbitration for damages not covered by the arbitration agreement. Any damage awards in arbitration cannot be awarded in litigation as well. As an example: if the promisee suffers $X + $Y in harm, and arbitration covers damages of $X, the promisee would only be able to sue (litigate) for $Y after arbitration. Without arbitration, the promisee could sue for the entire amount. If the promisee/plaintiff loses the lawsuit they can still enter arbitration (depending on terms) for $X. You may consider apartments rental income as equivalent to condo sales. This way you will not have to worry about discounting, vacancy rates, rental price changes in the future, etc. The stay of arbitration was not heard in time and the arbitration hearing proceeded. In October, 2022, all evidence and documents were submitted to the arbitration court. In January, 2023, both parties filed a motion to stay litigation until April, 2023, when they expect the arbitration ruling. In August, 2023, the two parties settled and dismissed the litigation case. Questions: Please ensure the following questions are answered: 1. In what way has the contract has been breached, in Neiman Marcus's assertion? What evidence does Neiman Marcus supply to support their complaint? 2. Define the actions that would be each party's consideration and reliance (essential and/or incidental, if applicable). If CPA were to be found guilty, what are the source(s) of unrealized gains that should be included in Neiman Marcus's expectation damage award (you will evaluate/calculate this in question 3). Which, if any, of these are covered in the arbitration agreement? 3. Neiman Marcus asks for a "stay of arbitration;" what is this, and regarding what specifically did Neiman Marcus and Copley Place Associates enter arbitration? Why does Copley Place Associates prefer to continue arbitration, and what is Copley asking from the court in the 'Dismissal'? Why does Neiman Marcus want the stay and why does Copley want the stay dismissed (consider each party's expected payoff function): model the expected payoffs from litigation for Copley and Neiman Marcus, identify the determinants of the expected payoff functions, and what causes the determinants to change. 4. Neiman Marcus seeks $50 million in (expectation) damages. Summarize the sources of Neiman Marcus's damages and define what parts of the damage award would be restitution, reliance, and expectation damages (if applicable). In your estimation, does the $50 million represent a 'fair' (i.e. accurate) value? Calculate expectation damages for Neiman Marcus (as if you were their expert witness). Provide the sources of Neiman Marcus's losses and supply data and information you used to arrive at a numerical estimation. 5. In your estimation, was it socially efficient for Copley Place Associates to cancel the tower project? Explain thoroughly and provide evidence to support your claim. Focus primarily on the two parties in the contract (Neiman Marcus and Copley Place; needs numerical evaluation), but also consider other surplus winners and losers (does not need numerical evaluation) had the tower been completed. References: Carlock, Catherine. "Neiman Marcus sues Copley Place owner Simon Property Group for $50 million over failed tower." The Boston Globe. 20 July 2022. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/20/business/neiman-marcus-suescopley-place-owner-simon-property-group-50m-over-failed-tower/. Accessed 25 Aug. 2022. Gaffin, Adam. "BRA approves 52-story tower at Copley Place." Universal Hub. 14 May 2015. https:// www.universalhub.com/2015/bra-approves-52-story-tower-copley-place. Accessed 25 Aug. 2022. Gaffin, Adam. "Neiman Marcus says Copley Place owner owes it $50 million for failed skyscraper plan." Universal Hub. 19 Jul. 2022. https://www.universalhub.com/2022/neiman-marcus-says-copley-plaza-owner-owes-it-50. Accessed 25 Aug. 2022. McNamara Salvia. Copley Place Tower. McNamara Salvia. 28 April 2021. https://www.mcsal.com/copleyplace-tower 3Motion to Dismiss, Neiman Marcus Group v. Copley Place Associates, Case No. 2284cv01629-BLS1, (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court. 16 Aug. 2022). Motion to Stay Arbitration, Neiman Marcus Group v. Copley Place Associates, Case No. 2284cv01629-BLS1, (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court. 16 Aug. 2022). Verified Complaint, Neiman Marcus Group v. Copley Place Associates, Case No. 2284cv01629-BLS1, (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court. 19 Jul. 2022).