could you use IRAC to explain the Scenarios for me please? that will make me have more sense about this topic and Each case needs at least one legal case or clause to back it up, please. and the word count is about 1.5k.

Scenario 1

Shirley, who was 16 and just about to finish her schooling, told her dentist, Dr Phil Ling, that she would really like to become a dental nurse. Since he undertook complex surgical procedures, she felt that she could learn complicated and difficult procedures from him if he would be willing to teach her. He agreed to do so for a period of one year. Shirley signed a 12 months contract to study dental nursing with Dr Ling, which included close observation, followed by a period of undertaking practical nursing skills under supervision. The contract stated: 1. Dr Ling would teach Shirley dental nursing skills for a period of one year, free of charge. 2. During those twelve months, Shirley would not be allowed use her dental nursing skills in another dental practice. 3. Once she achieved a high level of competence, Dr Ling could use her to assist him when his regular, experienced dental nurse was unavailable, but there was no requirement for him to offer any payment. After nine months, Shirley had become very competent and she accepted an invitation to do some paid weekend emergency dental nursing in another practice in the same area. She argued that she did this because she was not paid by Dr Ling for the work she did for him when his regular dental nurse was away, and she needed the income from the other practice to support herself. Dr Ling now intends to sue Shirley for breach of contract. Can Dr Ling enforce the contract against Shirley? Why/Why not? Note: No research is required for this scenario. Just rely on the course materials on chapter 6 of the textbook (Contractual Capacity) to answer this question. Do not discuss any other elements of the law of contract.

Scenario 2

Peter, who is Dr Phil Ling's brother, is a charismatic musician, who has made a name for himself in the music industry and, at the age of 35, has made enough money to retire. One day, he meets Swee Ling at the Australian Open. Currently on a student visa, her English is almost nonexistent, but somehow they manage to communicate with a few simple words and gestures. After only a few dates, Peter proposes to her and the wedding is set for just a month later. Two weeks before the wedding, Peter takes her to see his lawyer to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, explaining to Swee Ling that if she did not agree to signing the documents, that the wedding would not go ahead. To avoid any criticisms that he has not provided Swee Ling with independent legal advice, Peter took Swee Ling to a young, inexperienced lawyer the next day to view the agreement. The lawyer tells Swee Ling not to sign it, because if they should ever divorce, she would not be entitled to any part of Peter's wealth. However, since the wedding is only a week away, and with all her immediate family arriving in a few days, she goes ahead anyway. Swee Ling, of course, doesn't really understand the document or the lawyer's explanation, but simply hopes everything will be alright. And they were: for three months! They now want to get divorced. She comes to you for advice about the agreement she signed. Advise Swee Ling if she will successfully challenge the agreement. Note: While you may rely on the course materials on chapter 7 of the textbook (Genuine Consent), research is also required for this scenario. Do not discuss any other elements of the law of contract or any matrimonial legislation such as the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959, as they are outside the scope of this unit.

Scenario 3

Shirley, by the time she was 18, became disillusioned about working as a dental nurse, especially when she realised that she could not progress in her career without studying for qualifications. She decided to move to Adelaide, where her brother Gustav was working for a cleaning company and who she hoped would get her a well-paid job in the same firm. Gustav worked for Creative Cleaning Pty Ltd (Creative Cleaning), a company based in Adelaide that provide innovative solutions for problematic cleaning situations in medium to large scale organisations. Gustav was part of the team that developed creative, often ground-breaking solutions. Part of his job was to work with clients and to demonstrate his company's solutions in the clients' premises. His contract with Creative Cleaning stated the following: Following termination of employment, for whatever reason, the Employee shall not: 6.1.2 be employed directly or indirectly in any competitor of the Employer in any way or be interested directly or indirectly in any activity, occupation or project which would or might have the effect of promoting or assisting directly or indirectly any competitor of the Employer in any way, for a period of 12 months in the state of South Australia. Gustav decided to leave the company and gave notice. The day after leaving Creative Cleaning, he signed a contract with Sparkling Clean Group Pty Ltd, a company that imported cleaning products and that provided cleaning services to companies in South Australia (SA) and several regional towns in SA. Gustav's new position was a managerial one and a big career step up from his previous job. Creative Cleaning (the Applicant) found out about Gustav's new employment about one week after he had left and sought an injunction to restrain Gustav (the Respondent) from working for Sparkling Clean Group for a period of 12 months, from the date on which he left Creative Cleaning. Is the court likely to grant the injunction or not? Is clause 6.1.2 a reasonable restraint of trade clause? Why/Why not? (An injunction is a Court order directing a person notspecific thing.) Note: While you may rely on the course materials on chapter 8 of the textbook (Legality of Object), research is also required for this scenario. Do not discuss any other elements of the law of contract