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 3

R, a real estate developer, purchased a large tract of unimproved real property, subdivided the propertyinto lots, and then offered the parcels for sale to a corporate entity, Coastal Communities LLC (CC), which had been organized and incorporated by a group of investors. CC intended to develop and improve the lots and resell them to individuals intending to build homes on the lots.

CC's purchase of the property from R was financed by Bank. For internal purposes, Bank engaged a local firm, JP Realty LLC (JP) to appraise the property. (R was a part owner of JP.) Based on JP's appraisal, Bank decided that the property was sufficiently valued to justify Bank loaning the purchase money to CC.

Within months of the closing transaction (the sale and the financing), the local real estate marketcollapsed. CC was unable to sell lots at prices sufficient to repay Bank.

Bank sued CC for breach of contract to repay the loan. CC defended against Bank's action and filed athird-party complaint against JP on the basis that JP's appraisal misrepresented the value of the propertyby hugely overvaluing it. In essence, CC argued that Bank would not have made the loan - and CC would not have purchased the property -- but for JP's inaccurate appraisal.