Gathering 6 hearing 7 to tell 8 arguing

16 3, 4, 6

True 2 False

Slc 2d 3e

A 2 b 5 c 6

Suggested answer

Dear Ron

In response to your email this morning, let me first say

that I enjoyed reading your closing argument - well done!

You asked me to give you some feedback, which you will

Find in the margins of the attached document. For the

Most part, the changes which I think should be made

Involve giving more emphasis to important points and

Generally being more explicit.

I suggest emphasising that the delay was clearly

Unreasonable (due to perfect credit rating and sufficient

information being provided). I don't think the importance

Of this point can be stressed enough. I would even repeat

the word 'unreasonable' a few times! You also need to be

More explicit about the evidence showing that the delay

Was based on personal animosity.

False

B 5 a

D 4 e 1 f 3

I also recommend explicitly stating the reason why the

Defendant dislikes your client - that there was a lawsuit is

Not enough. It is imperative that you point out that the

Defendant lost the suit and had to pay high damages to

Your client and therefore dislikes him.

Finally, I suggest emphasising that your client informed

The defendant that time was of the essence in the matter

Of the assignment - this makes the delay appear more

Like an intentional attempt to harm your client.

Hope that these comments are of use to you. Feel free to

Contact me again if you have any questions.

Best

Sam

Monday, not any other day 2 the new client, not the

New boss or the new cleaner 3 the new client, not an

Existing one 4 meeting, not phoning or emailing

5 We're attending the meeting, not anyone else

Suggested answers

Don't worry if you underlined other words as well as those

Shown. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between

Words given emphatic stress and those with normal

Sentence stress.

Based on the evidence presented, the court must

Conclude that sufficient evidence supports a

Determination that the defendant unreasonablv withheld

Consent to the assignment.

The defendant nevertheless asserts that they did not

Refuse consent, but merely delaved giving my client an

Answer until additional information was obtained. We reiect

This argument. The terms of the lease provided that the

Defendant could not unreasonablv withhold consent, but

this is exactlv what it did. As defined in Webster's Third New

International Dictionary, 'withholding' means 'not f!:iving',

while 'refusing' on the other hand may require some

Affirmative act or statement. Jones Corporation did not

refuse consent, it is true. But Jones Corporation's decision

To delav consent amounted to a withholding of consent,

especially given my client's indication in a letter to the

Defendant that time was of the essence. And, as noted

Above, the evidence supports the determination that this

decision was unreasonable. Therefore, the defendant's

Attempt to distinguish between withholding consent and

Refusing consent is unavailing under the lease provision

Here.

Suggested answers

As we have clearlv demonstrated here today, the contract

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 784