![]() CATEGORIES: BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism |
Gathering 6 hearing 7 to tell 8 arguing16 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: 945
|