PLEASE ANSWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Luciano is a student living in a small town in the South Island. He is known as "the golden boy" in his community. His grandparents left him with a large inheritance. His father is a doctor. Luciano has been known as one who spends money freely. He drives a Porsche and eats at expensive restaurants. He wears expensive clothes, custom-made by Valentino Tailors, a bespoke tailor in town who makes clothing to individual clients' specification. He has been a good customer. To celebrate the final semester in high school, his college organized a dress-up party. In order to be seen as the best dressed gentleman at the party, Luciano had a three-piece suit specially designed and made by Valentino Tailors at a price of $3,000. Luciano was very unhappy after the party. At the party, his friends laughed at his suit which they said was old fashioned. To crown it all, his girlfriend told him that she was embarrassed by his suit. Luciano now refuses to pay Valentino Tailors arguing that he was not of full age when he ordered the suit. At the time he ordered the suit, he was three months short of 18 years old. ADVISE Valentino Tailors, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, whether they can sue Luciano for the cost of the suit. ADVISE Lee, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, of his legal position in each of the following instances (the events are not related): [Note: Do not reproduce the scenarios in your answers. Just number your answer according to the number of the question, e.g. 2(a)] (a) Lee was employed by Tim to renovate his house. The works were to be completed by mid-December so that the house would be ready for Christmas. Tim was concerned by the slow progress of the works and promised to pay Lee a bonus if he completed the works on time. Tim now refuses to pay the bonus arguing that Lee did no more than what he had to do, although Lee completed the works ahead of time. (5 Marks) (b) Lee sent his car to the garage to have new tyres installed. He told the mechanics: "Please also check and see whether there are other things which need taking care of." Seeing that one of the headlights was blown, the mechanics proceeded to replace the defective headlight after installing the new tyres. When Lee came back to collect his car, he was pleased with the initiative of the mechanics in replacing the defective headlight and promised to pay the garage for the new headlight, but later refuses to pay. (5 Marks) (c) Lee's friend Young borrowed $500 from him promising to repay the loan on 31 August 2017. On 31 August 2017, Young told Lee that he was not able to make the repayment as he had lost his job. Lee had always fancied Young's cricket cap. He told Young: "Just let me have $300 plus your cricket cap and consider us squared up (we owe each other nothing)." Lee subsequently discovered that Young lied to him about his job. He now demands Young to repay him the full amount of the loan. Do not consider promissory estoppel in your advice to Lee. (5 Marks) (d) A local store runs an end-of-winter sale. It sent out circulars which state, among other things, "Ajax winter jackets. Original price $150. Now $75. Only 2 left. First come, first served. Conditions apply. Ask customer service at the store." Pictures of the jackets are shown in the circular. Lee arrived at the Store and went straight to the display racks and grabbed both the Ajax winter jackets. At the checkout, the cashier refused to scan both jackets and said that the sale was limited to one jacket per customer. (5 Marks) (e) Lee would be sitting for his NCEA exam at the end of the year. He had been sloppy in his studies. His father was concerned about his marks in the exam. He promised to let him go camping with his friend if he achieved a good grade in the exam. Lee scored an Excellence grade in the exam. Lee's father now says he is too young to go camping and won't let him go. (5 Marks) In January 2016, Tara, who was awarded a scholarship, arrived in Christchurch to study for a degree in Commerce at the University of Canterbury. Through a property agent, she found a house near the university. The owner Bill was willing to rent out a room to her for a weekly rent of $300. Tara entered into a fixed three-year tenancy agreement with Bill. The tenancy agreement does not allow either party to terminate the tenancy early. Tara found that her scholarship was not sufficient to cover all her expenses. She managed to find a night job in a caf and a weekend job at a supermarket. She soon found that she could not cope with both studies and work. In July 2016, she gave up her work and concentrated on her studies. Bill, seeing Tara's situation, agreed to reduce her rent to $200.00 per week from July 2016. Tara gratefully accepted Bill's offer. In January 2017, the university awarded Tara an additional scholarship. Tara did not inform Bill of her improved financial situation. Last month, Bill heard from a friend of Tara about Tara's new scholarship. Bill now demands Tara to pay the full rent from July 2016 and for the remainder of the tenancy period. ADVISE Tara of her legal position, with reference to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and relevant cases. Paul booked a cruise with Pacific Pleasure Cruise Ltd (PPC) for a seven day cruise on the Gem of the Pacific to go around the Pacific Ocean. At the time of booking, Paul made it clear to PPC that the cruise was for the enjoyment of his parents Tim and Kim, who are both in their seventies. He paid a premium price of $12,000 for a suite with a sea view on the lower deck in the middle of the ship to minimize the risk of seasickness and to avoid noise from engines and public amenities. Tim and Kim's misery began soon after the cruise ship set sail. Due to a mix-up of bookings, they were given a small inside cabin near the ship engine room at the end of the ship. They were tortured by the non-stop noise from the ship engines and even with ear plugs they hardly had any rest throughout the cruise. On the third day of the cruise, the ship sailed into choppy seas. For almost two days the ship swayed and rocked. Tim and Kim could not get up of bed. As a result of vomiting and lack of sleep, they were dehydrated and had to be hospitalized at the end of the cruise. Paul plans to sue PPC for the disappointment and loss of enjoyment suffered by his parents. ADVISE Paul, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, whether he would succeed in his action. Assume that damages may be awarded if the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind and the contrary result is procured instead. If Paul is unwilling to sue, ADVISE Tim and Kim, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, whether they are entitled to sue PPC for their suffering and loss of enjoyment. Luciano is a student living in a small town in the South Island. He is known as "the golden boy" in his community. His grandparents left him with a large inheritance. His father is a doctor. Luciano has been known as one who spends money freely. He drives a Porsche and eats at expensive restaurants. He wears expensive clothes, custom-made by Valentino Tailors, a bespoke tailor in town who makes clothing to individual clients' specification. He has been a good customer. To celebrate the final semester in high school, his college organized a dress-up party. In order to be seen as the best dressed gentleman at the party, Luciano had a three-piece suit specially designed and made by Valentino Tailors at a price of $3,000. Luciano was very unhappy after the party. At the party, his friends laughed at his suit which they said was old fashioned. To crown it all, his girlfriend told him that she was embarrassed by his suit. Luciano now refuses to pay Valentino Tailors arguing that he was not of full age when he ordered the suit. At the time he ordered the suit, he was three months short of 18 years old. ADVISE Valentino Tailors, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, whether they can sue Luciano for the cost of the suit. ADVISE Lee, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, of his legal position in each of the following instances (the events are not related): [Note: Do not reproduce the scenarios in your answers. Just number your answer according to the number of the question, e.g. 2(a)] (a) Lee was employed by Tim to renovate his house. The works were to be completed by mid-December so that the house would be ready for Christmas. Tim was concerned by the slow progress of the works and promised to pay Lee a bonus if he completed the works on time. Tim now refuses to pay the bonus arguing that Lee did no more than what he had to do, although Lee completed the works ahead of time. (5 Marks) (b) Lee sent his car to the garage to have new tyres installed. He told the mechanics: "Please also check and see whether there are other things which need taking care of." Seeing that one of the headlights was blown, the mechanics proceeded to replace the defective headlight after installing the new tyres. When Lee came back to collect his car, he was pleased with the initiative of the mechanics in replacing the defective headlight and promised to pay the garage for the new headlight, but later refuses to pay. (5 Marks) (c) Lee's friend Young borrowed $500 from him promising to repay the loan on 31 August 2017. On 31 August 2017, Young told Lee that he was not able to make the repayment as he had lost his job. Lee had always fancied Young's cricket cap. He told Young: "Just let me have $300 plus your cricket cap and consider us squared up (we owe each other nothing)." Lee subsequently discovered that Young lied to him about his job. He now demands Young to repay him the full amount of the loan. Do not consider promissory estoppel in your advice to Lee. (5 Marks) (d) A local store runs an end-of-winter sale. It sent out circulars which state, among other things, "Ajax winter jackets. Original price $150. Now $75. Only 2 left. First come, first served. Conditions apply. Ask customer service at the store." Pictures of the jackets are shown in the circular. Lee arrived at the Store and went straight to the display racks and grabbed both the Ajax winter jackets. At the checkout, the cashier refused to scan both jackets and said that the sale was limited to one jacket per customer. (5 Marks) (e) Lee would be sitting for his NCEA exam at the end of the year. He had been sloppy in his studies. His father was concerned about his marks in the exam. He promised to let him go camping with his friend if he achieved a good grade in the exam. Lee scored an Excellence grade in the exam. Lee's father now says he is too young to go camping and won't let him go. (5 Marks) In January 2016, Tara, who was awarded a scholarship, arrived in Christchurch to study for a degree in Commerce at the University of Canterbury. Through a property agent, she found a house near the university. The owner Bill was willing to rent out a room to her for a weekly rent of $300. Tara entered into a fixed three-year tenancy agreement with Bill. The tenancy agreement does not allow either party to terminate the tenancy early. Tara found that her scholarship was not sufficient to cover all her expenses. She managed to find a night job in a caf and a weekend job at a supermarket. She soon found that she could not cope with both studies and work. In July 2016, she gave up her work and concentrated on her studies. Bill, seeing Tara's situation, agreed to reduce her rent to $200.00 per week from July 2016. Tara gratefully accepted Bill's offer. In January 2017, the university awarded Tara an additional scholarship. Tara did not inform Bill of her improved financial situation. Last month, Bill heard from a friend of Tara about Tara's new scholarship. Bill now demands Tara to pay the full rent from July 2016 and for the remainder of the tenancy period. ADVISE Tara of her legal position, with reference to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and relevant cases. Paul booked a cruise with Pacific Pleasure Cruise Ltd (PPC) for a seven day cruise on the Gem of the Pacific to go around the Pacific Ocean. At the time of booking, Paul made it clear to PPC that the cruise was for the enjoyment of his parents Tim and Kim, who are both in their seventies. He paid a premium price of $12,000 for a suite with a sea view on the lower deck in the middle of the ship to minimize the risk of seasickness and to avoid noise from engines and public amenities. Tim and Kim's misery began soon after the cruise ship set sail. Due to a mix-up of bookings, they were given a small inside cabin near the ship engine room at the end of the ship. They were tortured by the non-stop noise from the ship engines and even with ear plugs they hardly had any rest throughout the cruise. On the third day of the cruise, the ship sailed into choppy seas. For almost two days the ship swayed and rocked. Tim and Kim could not get up of bed. As a result of vomiting and lack of sleep, they were dehydrated and had to be hospitalized at the end of the cruise. Paul plans to sue PPC for the disappointment and loss of enjoyment suffered by his parents. ADVISE Paul, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, whether he would succeed in his action. Assume that damages may be awarded if the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind and the contrary result is procured instead. If Paul is unwilling to sue, ADVISE Tim and Kim, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and cases, whether they are entitled to sue PPC for their suffering and loss of enjoyment