please answer all the questionss.,.within 30 minutes. make sure the explanation and reasons are explained in very detailed manner. else leave it for other tutor otherwise i will give negative ratings and will also report your answer for unprofessionalism. Make sure the answer is 100% correct and IS NOT COPIED FROM ANYWHERE ELSE YOUR ANSWER WILL DOWNVOTED AND REPORTED STRAIGHTAWAY. USE YOUR OWN LANGUAGE WHILST WRITING.

ATTEMPT THE QUESTION ONLY IF YOU ARE 100% CORRECT AND SURE. ELSE LEAVE IT FOR ANOTHER TUTOR. BUT PLEASE DONT PUT WRONG ANSWER ELSE I WILL REPORT.

MAKE SURE THE ANSWER IS WELL EXPLAINED AND DETAILED.

5. Eleanor Schock discovered that her late father's attomey, Pat Nero, had embezzled from the estate of her father, Miller, including the sum of $23.331.72 in Miller's savings account at Old Stone Bank. At the time Nero withdrew the funds, Old Stone was being run under the conservatorship of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), the FDIC's statu tory predecessor. As holder of her father's estate's claims, Schock sued the FDIC, as receiver for Old Stone, for breach of contract, alleging that the bank permitted an unauthorized signatory (Nero) to withdraw funds on deposit in the Miller sav. ings account. The FDIC receiver argued that the bank had paid Nero, a fiduciary who was authorized to receive the money in the account, in good faith and should not be held liable because Nero misappropriated the money. Schock argued that Nero's apparent authority to withdraw the money as Miller's agent ended by operation of law when Miller died. In response, the FDIC receiver argued that apparent agency terminates only when a third party has notice of the termination. Schock offered evidence that the bank had actual notice that Miller had died when it permitted the Nero savings account withdrawal. Schock's evidence included a bank employee's statement that the bank had in place a procedure for checking the obituaries in the local paper to see whether bank clients had died, as well as the fact that an obituary for Miller appeared in that paper. Was Schock successful at trial? Did the publication of an obit uary constitute actual notice? [Shock United States, 254 F.3d 1 (2001) 6. Water, Waste, & Land, Inc., is a land development and engineering company doing business under the name "Westee." Donald Lanham and Larry Clark were managers and also members of Preferred Income Investors (PII). LLC. PIl is a limited liability company. Clark contacted Westee about the possibility of hiring Westec to perform engineering work in connection with a development project. In the course of preliminary discussions, Clark gave his business card to representatives of Westee. The business card included Lanham's address, which was also the address listed as PIl's principal office and place of business. While Pil's name was not on the business card, the letters "PI!" appeared above the address on the card. However, there was no indication as to what the acronym meant or that PII was a limited liability company. Although Westec never received a signed contract, it did receive verbal authorization from Clark to begin work. Westec completed the engineering work and sent a bill for $9.183.40 to Lanham. No payments were made on the bill. Westec filed a claim against Clark and Lanham individually as well as against PIL. At trial. PIl admitted liability for the amount claimed by Westec. Accordingly, the court dismissed Clark from the suit, concluding that he could not be held personally liable, and entered judgment in the amount of $9.183 against Lanham and PIl. Lanham appealed. On appeal. was Lanham found liable for the amount due to Westec? Why? analyze the cases in the Questions and Problems. For each assigned case, write an analysis of the issue based on the following criteria: Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties). Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear. Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law. Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view