Problem 1: a) Will Bill have to pay this amount to Anne? The given case is of gratuitous bailment. A Contract where one individual passes on items to the following upon return reason to fulfill a specific aim is called bailment contract. It fuses two parties specifically; bailer and bailee. The person who is passing on the stock is called bailer and the person to whom items are passed on, is called Bailee(Mittal n.d.). Bailment Contracts types The bailments contracts are characterized into: a) Gratuitous bailments and b) Non – Gratuitous bailments. Gratuitous Bailments: If there is stand out directional thought, it is called Gratuitous bailment. In here, the bailment contract is for the benefit of either the bailer or the bailee as it were. In this case Anne is Bailor and Bill is Bailee(Bailment Contracts n.d.). As per the given case, Bill has lost his job and Anne has promised not to sue him for the remaining amount of $1500. Bill has paid the amount of $4000 on which settlement has been made between them on 1 st January 2016. Bill is liable to pay $1500 to Anne, because on 1 st January when he paid $4000. Though Bill thought the matter is now closed, Anne sued him after a week of making payment. b) Yes, my answer would be different, if they both agree that Bill would pay the $4,000 on 12 December 2015 and Bill paid on that earlier date. Here it will be case of non-gratuitous bailment because both parties are benefitted. Problem 2: Implementation of infringement of law is Breach. When the contract is broken or not acted upon the contract is the breach of contract. At the point when any party neglects to perform its obligations in a legitimate contract it is called breach of agreement. The harmed party has a privilege to make a move against the party who has neglected to perform his part of agreement(What is breach of contract and discuss its remedies available to an aggrieved party? 2011). In the given case, Eric sold his 1998 model commodore to his friend Michael for $2000. As per the contract, Michael pays the same to Eric at the time and place fixed. Eric was in hurry at the time of making the deal. So when in the evening, Eric checked the envelope, it has HKD 2000. Over this Eric calls Michael and asks him to pay AUD 2000. But Michael denies saying there was an agreement to pay $ 2000 and no country was specified at the time of making the contract. As Eric seeks my advice, now there are two possibilities. It is nowhere mentioned about the country where the agreement was made. If the contact is made in Australia, it is very much understood that the contract amount is AUD, not HKD. In this case it is breach of contract. This is the case of General Damage, where Eric suffers a loss due to non-performance of Michael. Eric has full right to recover remaining amount. Several remedies are awarded for breach of contract(Remedies for Breach of Contract n.d.). They are : a) award of damages, b) specific performance,  c) rescission, and d) restitution. There are two sorts of compensatory harms that the breach of contract claim is proved by: A. General Damages: Any damages incurred by the breach of contract directly are covered under such agreement. In general, such harms are recognized widely by breach of agreement and are most common. B. Uncommon Damages. Extraordinary harms likewise called significant harms cover any misfortune caused by the breach of agreement due to exceptional circumstances or conditions that are not usually unsurprising. These are real misfortunes brought on by the breach, however not in an immediate and quick way. To acquire harms for this kind of misfortune, the non-breaching party must demonstrate that the breaking party knew of the extraordinary circumstances or prerequisites at the time the agreement was made. Problem 3: This is the case of payment agreement contract. In such a contract, payer agrees to make payments to payee or the lender by the following schedule for exchange for service or product rendered. The law enforces this payment program, and the techniques portrayed underneath will be utilized as a part of instances of reprobate payment (Payment Agreement Contract n.d.). By this agreement, an agreement is made that a compensation of sumwill be surrendered to the Lender as mentioned in the terms and condition of the membership contract. George has returned DVD after 8days of the hiring. Those numerous terms and conditions which he was entitled to follow just after signing the contract were levied on him. Whatever the reason may be behind late returning of the DVDs he will have to pay $140 to the shop owner of DVD. In general the late returning fine is $5 for a day on one DVD. But he had taken the DVD under the contract signed for membership offer of 100 overnight DVDs for the next three months for only $100. The sign additionally records the various terms and states of the enrollment contract. George pays his $100 joining expense and initiates to appreciate as of late discharged motion pictures at that modest cost. The rule regarding the returning of the DVD says that Hiring of the DVDs under this agreement is restricted to overnight hire only. DVD hired shall be returned by 3pm, if not done so then the person on the next day must be paid for every day at the rate of $20. Considering everything, George needs to pay the fine for next 7 days when he was sick and did not make to give back the DVD to the businessperson, regardless of the late returning fine is $5 regularly.Under payment agreement contract, if the party (George) fails to meet its terms will directly allow the Lender (the shop owner) to take certain recourse. First, late payments will incur a fine of fee ($20) for every interval ( 7 days). Insufficient payment and bounced checks will incur again a fine of fee. Problem 4: a) What will you advise Grant who has come to you very distressed and fully expecting to successfully sue Eagle Eye? In the wake of listening to all the story from Grant, I came to know the Eagle Eye Security has let him know before at the season of coming into contract that they won't be dependable under any circumstances, for harm or damaging act brought about by a guard of the organization unless such act could have been predicted and maintained a strategic distance from by the activity of due persistence with respect to the Company as his boss(Australian Consumer Law n.d.). At the time of accident happened, Guard Andy was at the patrolling of his second hand motor vehicle yard. He lighted the cigarette and threw the match in the puddle of oil, thinking it to be puddle of water. In the lieu of course the whole yard was exploded and all the vehicles are burnt. But Grant cannot sue the Security Guard Company for this act of Andy (the guard). In this case, act could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of the Company as his employer, so they are responsible. It may be the case of tort of negligence. It is the case of civil wrongdoing. The purpose behind making a move in tort is to get remuneration. In the event that legitimate rights have been encroached the Claimant can sue for pay. The rights are the key not the damage in light of the fact that there is no programmed right to pay if the Claimant has endured harm, a privilege more likely than not been encroached. Certain rights are there, which the law considers so important that in the event that they are encroached an activity can be brought without demonstrating any harm. (a) Negligence A lot of tort law is worried with the minor departure from the tort of negligence. The tort of negligence covers a wide assortment of circumstances and is along these lines uneven. All in all if a Claimant wishes to set up carelessness against a litigant he should illustrate: (i) that the respondent owed him/her an obligation of consideration; (ii) that the respondent broke the obligation of consideration; and (iii) that the break of obligation made misfortune the Claimant. In this case, the Security Company owed George the duty of care. So they are responsible for the loss incurred due to fire in the car yard. b) Ignoring any possible statute law issues, what would your advice be if the clause was different to the one above, instead stating the following? In this case also the tort of negligence is covered. The security company is NOT responsible to pay for the damages caused due to any negligence of the employee of the company while he is patrolling the yard. It was clearly informed by the Company at the time of agreement that they are not responsible for any loss or damages to the property however such loss or damage may arise or be caused. Bibliography Australian Consumer Law, viewed 24 Apr 2016, <http://consumerlaw.gov.au/>. Bailment Contracts, viewed 24 Apr 2016, <http://www.lawsofbusiness.com/2012/04/bailment-