This is a problem question. You must be sure to address all the issues raised in the question. Guidance is provided in the 'advice' section below. Ahmed and Kit have been married for 7 years and during that time have also set up a very successful high-end jewellery business together. Much of the jewellery they sell is sourced from overseas suppliers, especially in Asia. Ahmed and Kit's marriage has recently run into trouble after Ahmed discovered that Kit has been having an affair with Chris, who he met on a business trip. Chris was also married at the time. Ahmed is now seeking a divorce from Kit and their joint jewellery business has been dissolved. Kit and Chris have now launched another similar business together, 'Sparkly Things'. Ahmed is devastated by the loss of his husband and his business. He confides in his friend, Mariam, that he does not think that anyone should ever trust Kit and Chris as they are lying adulterers'. He says he would never place an order with 'Sparkly Things'. Mariam cancels a large order that she has just placed with 'Sparkly Things'. Ahmed also posts messages on his personal social media site saying that Kit and Chris are wicked adulterers' with whom he would not do business. Several customers subsequently cancel their orders. A couple of months later Ahmed decides to set up another business, 'Luxury Trinkets', in direct competition with 'Sparkly Things. As a part of his advertising on social media, where he has a following of 324,000, Ahmed says that all his jewellery is ethically sourced, unlike the jewellery sold by 'Sparkly Things', which often relies on materials mined from environmentally suspect sources and uses 'slave labour' to produce and distribute the goods. This is untrue and results in the cancellation of a lucrative order that has just been placed with 'Sparkly Things'. You are required to advise: 1. Whether Kit and Chris have any claims in defamation against Ahmed 2. Any potential defences that may be available to Ahmed 3. Advise Kit and Chris of any remedies that they may have. Question 1 is a problem-style question. You were introduced to problem-style questions in Section 7 of Unit 3, where you were also introduced to the IRAC structure in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. You should use the IRAC method when answering this question. You should answer all three parts to the question, as one answer. When writing your answer, you need to include a short introduction and conclusion as set out in the guidance for problem questions. You need to cite relevant case law, including providing case citations in the footnotes. An example can be found in the Cite Them Right version of OSCOLA. It is important that you state clearly how the law applies and what your conclusion is. You do not need to use additional information from elsewhere and you will not be credited for doing so. You may, however, use any relevant content from the textbook. This question concerns defamation, on which you will find information in Unit 16 and Unit 17. You should consider whether the remarks made by Ahmed in respect of Kit and Chris are defamatory. You need to consider the following: Can Kit and Chris bring an action? Is the statement defamatory? Has the claimant suffered serious harm? Does the statement refer to the claimants (Kit and Chris? Has the statement been published? Are there any relevant defences that Ahmed can rely upon? If successful, what remedies might Kit and Chris be entitled to? (Note: you are not expected to quantify this.)