Hello, I need help in explaining answers to the following questions using the case below please:

"Raissa and Izza had a great idea to work together to renovate an abandoned gas station and turn the building into a restaurant - they could pool their expertise and money and make a sizeable return on their investment. The vendor, David, indicated that the property would work very well for a restaurant. Raissa had just read an article in the paper dealing with environmental hazards and was concerned about any such potential contamination from the underground gas tanks used by the previous property owner. When the women raised this matter with David, he indicated that there was no problem at all and that the storage tanks had been removed under close scrutiny of the city. Raissa clearly remembered the conversation as David was extremely animated in the conversation and emphatically guaranteed that there was no environmental contamination.

Acting on emotion, Raissa and Izza used all of their savings (and a substantial amount of the bank's money) and purchased the property.

When Raissa and Izza applied for a development permit, they were told that they needed an environmental assessment proving that there was no pollution on the property. They hired an environmental audit company who advised them that the ground under where the gas storage tanks were located was polluted and that the contamination was spreading to the neighbouring property. Raissa and Izza were told that the cleanup costs would be almost double that which they had paid for the property."

1. Identify and explain five of the nature of the relationship between Raissa and Izza and the rights and obligations that they have and owe to each other as a result of their relationship and include any applicable legislation in your response and tie the law to the facts and draw a conclusion.

"Shortly after they purchased the property their neighbour, Harleen, contacted them and asked when they would be cleaning her property. She pulled out a written agreement executed by David that stated that the new owner(s) would be responsible for all clean up costs associated with removing the contaminated soil from the property. Harleen said that if they did not start to clean the property immediately, she would see them in court."

2. Explain whether Raissa and Izza are compelled to clean up the propertybased on the contract produced by Harleen and include any applicable legislation in your response and tie the law to the facts and draw a conclusion.

3. Explain whether Raissa and Izza may be compelled to clean up the property based on a source of lawother than the contract and tie the law to the facts and draw a conclusion.

4. Explain what Raissa and Izza could have done to limit their potential liability in the venture, both with regard to how they chose to set up their business and due diligence that they could have conductedbefore deciding to purchase David's property.

b) Tie the law to the facts and draw a conclusion.

Please help and I will give you a thumbs up!