Case: [Mike Building & Contracting, Inc. v. Just Homes, LLC, 27 Misc.3d 833, 901 N.Y.S.2d 458(2010)] Question: Which of the two parties involved breached the contract?

Analyze the following Business Case Problems and answer questions pertaining to each Case Problem.nnUse the basic steps in legal reasoning form “IRAC method” Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion along with the Facts for each case.nnPaper should be in APA Format along with cite/reference page. No more than 3 pages Non Plagiarism paper.nnPlease see below the cases and use the “IRAC” method along with Facts for each case.nn nnCase Problem 18-5: Condition PrecedentnnCase: [Mike Building & Contracting, Inc. v. Just Homes, LLC, 27 Misc.3d 833, 901 N.Y.S.2d 458(2010)]nnQuestion: Which of the two parties involved breached the contract?nn nnCase Problem 19-4: Liquidated Damages and PenaltiesnnCase: [Planned Pethood Plus, Inc. v. KeyCorp, Inc., 228 P.3d 262  (Colo.App. 2010)]nnQuestion: Was the loan’s prepayment charge reasonable, and should it have been enforced? Why or Why not?nn nnCase Problem 20-3: Spotlight on Goods and Services – The Statue of Frauds.nnCase: [Fallsview Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Rosenfield, 794 N.Y.S.2d 790 (N.Y.Super. 2005)]nnQuestion: Rosenfield claimed that the contract was unenforceable because it was not in writing and violated the UCC,s Statue of Frauds. Is the contract valid? Explain.nn nnCase Problem 22-5: Breach and DamagesnnCase: [DeRosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc., 780 N.W.2d 1(Minn.App. 2010)]nnQuestion: Because Utility charged nothing for the fill, was there a breach of contract? If so, would the damages be greater than $9,500? Could consequential damages be justified?nn nn nnCase Problem 23-4: Implied WarrantiesnnCase: [Rothing v. Kallestad, 337 Mont. 193, 159 P.3.222 (2007)]nnQuestion:  Kallestad asked the court dismiss this claim on the ground that, if botulism had been present, it had been in no way foreseeable. Should the court grant this re quest? Why or Why not?nn nnCase Problem 33-5: Liability Based on Actual or Apparent Authority.nnCase: [Summerall Electric Co. v. Church of God at Southaven, 25 So.3d 1090 (App.Miss.2010)]nnQuestion: The subcontractors sued the church, contending that it was liable for the payments because NCS was its agent on the basis of either actual or apparent authority. Was NCS an agent for the church, thereby making the church liable to the subcontractors? Explain