there is a problem based assignment in business law (Tort Law between JRU vs WAD), but I have trouble with these three questions. Any tutors can help with it with specific analysis? it is due on today at 4:30pm

your analysis . Please answer the following questions : available in the world today . " WAD sues JRU for fraud . 12 . Does JRU have any valid defenses to WAD's fraud claim ? \\1 . Does WAD have sufficient evidence to succeed in its case for fraud ? were ever told that , and none of us had any independent knowledge of that ." 13 . If you were the judge of the case , would you rule in favor of JR U or WAD ? Why ? mostate the questions in your paper. You should ( a ) identify the relevant issues , (6 ) determine the papers should be 3 - $ pages in length , 12-point font , double spaced, with reasonable margins . Do not hibiblicable rules and principles from the text , ( c ) analyze how the rules and principles specifically apply to the given set of facts , and ( d ) state a concise and well-reasoned conclusion that logically follows from WRITING ASSIGNMENT Tewels R US (RU ) and We Are Diamonds ( WAD ) are public companies and competitors . Each DIAMONDS ARE SORT OF FOREVER fraudulent misrepresentation , since " Lightning Diamonds are not the most brilliant diamonds come out with an advertising slogan for its Lightning Diamonds . The slogan states that " Lightning president is correct and that whether a diamond is " brilliant " is an entirely subjective determination . yogurt is the best there is , or that a type of car is a driver's dream . " An expert for JRU testifies that the Diamonds are the most brilliant diamonds in the world . " WAD has claimed that the slogan is a company is in the business of making retail sales of precious gems to consumers . JRU has just At trial , the president of J R U testifies : " Our slogan in no different from one saying that a company's However , an expert for WAD testifies that , in the diamond business , the brilliance of a diamond scientifically measured . " JRU then provides evidence of testing by a JRU- owned laboratory and the untrustworthy . When he is recalled to the stand to testify again , the president of J RU states ," if there is " not just a subjective opinion that varies from person to person , but is something that can be that the supposed " testing " did not use a representative sample of diamonds and was therefore results that support the company's " brilliance " claim . Not to be outdone , WAD provides evidence was anything wrong with our test procedures , neither I nor any other executives of our company