1. Select Case 2 and 4 from Discussions and Questions section from Chapter 9.
2. Brainstorm with your team members.
3. Analyze both cases.
4. Find out the Similarities and differences between Case 2 and Case 4.
5. Include the answers to the following questions:
   1. What are the facts in both cases?
   2. What are the legal questions in these cases?
   3. Identify the legislations related to the cases.
   4. What reasoning supports your decision? And why?
   5. Examine the similarities and differences between these cases.
   6. Write a two-page summary.
   7. Submit to the Submission Folder: Case Study 2 Test on Brightspace.

CASE 2

CASE 4

2. Teleflex Inc.v. I.M.P. Group Ltd., (1996), 149 N.S.R. (2d) 355 (NS CA); 1996 CanLII 5603 Teleflex Inc., an American company manufacturing aircraft components, knew that I.M.P. Group Ltd. was negotiating with the Brazilian government to carry out a program for the turbinization of its Tracker aircraft fleet. Teleflex offered to supply necessary parts, to which proposal I.M.P. responded with a purchase order for 13 quadrant assembly sets at \$27 500 each. The shipping schedule was to commence in March 1990. Included was a provision whereby I.M.P. could order a suspension of the work with a reasonable price adjustment, and a further provision whereby I.M.P. could terminate the order with payment to Teleflex for both completed and uncompleted work, according to a formula that factored in lost profits. Thereafter, Teleflex commenced manufacturing the quadrant assembly units. In September 1989, Teleflex received the first of a series of notices from I.M.P. requesting postponement of delivery of the units. Teleflex acknowledged receipt of these stop-work letters, advising that in the event of termination its termination liability schedule "attached to our 4. 652013 B.C. Ltd. v. Kim, [2006] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. S.C.J.); 2006 CanLII 2892 The defendant rented six illuminated signs from the plaintiff. Upset that one of the signs was illuminated only sporadically, the defendant stopped payment. Later the defendant also complained that one of the signs was obstructed by trees. After repeated demands for payment, the plaintiff sued. The lease agreement contained an acceleration clause, so the plaintiff claimed the accelerated amount owing under the lease. The plaintiff established that the cause for the interrupted illumination was beyond its control-the power supply was not its responsibility. The acceleration clause, when applied, resulted in an effective rate of interest of 26.8 percent. Should the plaintiff recover judgment for the accelerated amount? What original proposal will apply." I.M.P. continued to experience difficulties in closing the deal with the Brazilian government and finally, in 1994, indicated it would not be requiring fulfillment of the purchase order. Teleflex treated this as a termination notice and advised I.M.P. that it would submit a termination claim based on work performed to date. The claim amounted to US $229576 for materials, overhead, and profit. I.M.P. countered that no monies were payable because the contract had been frustrated by the Brazilian government, and further, no quadrant assembly units were ever delivered by Teleflex. Based on these facts, was the contract frustrated? Is any money payable to Teleflex? What factors affect your conclusion