First, please read the facts carefully and identify all possible legal issues in the case. For example, Party A did XXX which will lead to YYY, thus Party A may lose the case because...// the case have a misrepresentation issue since Party A did Xx that lead Party B think Yy, then it cause B to making decision on Zz.

Secondly, do the identification the legal issues for each of the party involve. (Note: please do focus on issue spotting).

Lastly, argue further and give an example on if a factor change what the result would be for example, "Who would win the lawsuit (and why) if A, instead of acting as she did in the problem, [failed to send the notice] [wrote B urging her to perform] [never responded] [whatever]?" (Note: you may change the factor in any way you want.

Hypo facts are vague which for the purpose for you to change it, for example you may say "if the system instead on date X the warranty still works and Party A have legal stand to ask for remedy - law says party may require remedy"

HYPO 2

In 2015, Plaintiffs, as individuals and as general partners, acquired property along a busy highway forthe purpose of constructing and operating a motel and restaurant. They asked ABC Bank for a loan in the amount of $1,162,500 to finance construction of the motel-restaurant project. As a condition for making the construction loan, ABC required that plaintiffs obtain a permanent loan commitment in the same amount "to provide a payout of the construction loan upon the completion of construction."

Plaintiffs then applied for a long-term, permanent loan commitment from the defendant in the amount of $1,162,500, repayable over 25 years at an interest rate of nine and one-half percent (9 1/2%) per annum. Soon, defendant committed to make the long-term loan plaintiffs had requested. Defendant was obligated to pay off the construction loan that Plaintiffs planned to acquire from ABC Bank.

Relying upon defendant's commitment to make the permanent loan, ABC and plaintiffs executed a short-term construction loan agreement (secured by a real estate mortgage on the property) in the amount of $1,162,500, at 9% Interest per annum. Payment of the full amount plus interest to ABC was due at the closing of the permanent loan to be made by defendant which was scheduled on 1 October 2017. At the closing, defendant would pay off the construction loan and assume the long term,permanent financing.

When the construction project was completed in the first week of September 2017, plaintiffs immediately opened for business and contacted defendant to coordinate closing on the permanent, take out loan. Defendant, however, repudiated its commitment to make the permanent loan, claiming financial inability to comply with its contract with plaintiffs. Defendant pointed to a severe, unexpected change in the national economy which prompted costly regulatory changes leading to defendant's unprofitability.

Plaintiffs made repeated efforts to acquire permanent financing from other lenders, but they wereunsuccessful in finding another permanent financer - at any interest rate -- before the due date on the ABC construction loan, which was October 1, 2017. In order to forestall ABC foreclosing on the construction loan, the plaintiffs agreed to refinance the construction loan with ABC for 18 months at a fluctuating rate of interest no lower than 12% per annum.

By the end of this 18-month period, plaintiffs had finally found permanent financing at the then marketrate of 10 % per annum, which allowed plaintiffs to pay off the construction loan owed ABC.

Plaintiffs sued defendant. The trial court found that defendant breached its contract with plaintiffs andawarded these damages:

$15,888.12 for the additional expenses incurred in searching for an alternative lender;

$220,000, representing the present value of the reasonable additional cost to the plaintiffs of long term loan, permanent financing [difference between the interest costs on the long-term loan plaintiffs finally arranged (which was at 10 %) and the interest rate that the defendant had promised (which was 9 %)]; and,

On appeal, the intermediate appellate court affirmed with respect to defendant's liability but modifiedthe trial court's award of damages.