discuss the issue of every case with appropriate law's section,give comment,and discuss the issue

RESPONSE

1. Jenny bo
owed $3000 from her friend Vicky so she could quit her job and finish her PhD.
They agreed Jenny would pay 10% interest and would repay the loan in 12 months time. Nine
months after the loan as made, Vicky wanted to go and live in Japan. She asked Jenny
whether she could repay her. Jenny said “I only have $2700 at the moment. I will have the
$3300 by the end of the twelve months”. Vicky said “That is no good. I‟m leaving next week
and don‟t know when I will be back. Give me the $2700 now and forget the rest”. Vicky then
decided not to go to Japan and asks Jenny for the rest of the money. Does Jenny have to pay
the extra $600?
Response 1
Jenny bo
owed $3000 from her friend Vicky with a 10% interest. After one year (12 Months)
Jenny has to return $3300 to her friend as agreed. After nine months, Vicky asks for her money and
she did not wait the whole period as agreed. Jenny gives $2700 back to Vicky because she only has
this sum of money at that moment. She has to only return $525 = $25 * 9 months Vicky said to
Jenny to forget the rest so it means that Jenny is not obliged to return the whole rest of the money.
According to the law, it is possible to deduct interest on loans if:
• You are legally liable for that debt.
• Both you and the lender intend that the debt be repaid.
• You and the lender have a true debtor-creditor relationship.
The interest rate is the amount of money at which interest is returned by bo
owers for the usage of
the bo
owed sum of money. In our context, the interest rate (I/m) is a (%) percent of principal (P)
paid a certain amount of times (m) per period most of the times quoted per annum. The interest rate
is the beneficiary rate that usually meets the short- and medium-term financing needs. This rate is
normally differentiated according to creditworthiness of bo
owers and objectives of financing. The
terms and conditions attached to these rates differ by country, however, limiting their comparability.
2. Michael took his white formal suit and his wife‟s green silk dress to „Quik‟nCheep dry-
cleaners‟. He had been getting his dry cleaning done here for several years. He was handed a
docket and, as usual, he placed it in his wallet without reading it. When he went to collect the
clothing they could not find his suit and his wife‟s dress was badly stained. One of the shop
assistants said that they had handed over a white formal suit to a woman this morning who
said she had lost her ticket. No explanation was offered about the stain. When Michael
demanded compensation he was refe
ed to a clause on the docket which said „We are not be
liable for any loss or damage to clothing left for cleaning howsoever such loss or damage may
e caused‟. The manager pointed out the large sign at the back of the shop which had the
same words. The sign had clearly been there for some time. Michael protested that he had
never read either the docket or the sign. Advise Michael whether he is able to sue...