OTHER: The case that was written by the writer is wrong the requirement is anoth

OTHER: The case that was written by the writer is wrong the requirement is another case.
the coursework has two cases : Case 1 , Case 2
case 1 was fine the problem was in case 2 ( Tai hing )
I have provided in files the correct in files
(( The wrong facts was that)) . There were descriptions of a case about a cheque for 350 Euros involving a wife’s signature, and the bank won the case (( WRONG!!))
above is the wrong facts that was written by the first writer!!
——————————————-
(( The correct facts ))
. was about a series of cheques for about 5.5m Hong Kong dollars. and the Bank lost, on the basis that customers have no duty to check their bank statements. ( this is the correct facts that must be written))
and the question for the coursework was :
. Explain the reasoning of the Privy Council in Tai Hing Cotton Mills v Liu Chong Bank.
Do you think the approach adopted by the Privy Council is a sensible one? Why (not)?
Comments from Customer
PREVIOUS PAPER INSTRUCTIONS (#436892389): 1. Explain the reasoning of the House of Lords in Etridge v Royal Bank of Scotland. Do you think the approach adopted by the House of Lords is a sensible one? Why (not)?
(15 Marks)
2. Explain the reasoning of the Privy Council in Tai Hing Cotton Mills v Liu Chong Bank.
Do you think the approach adopted by the Privy Council is a sensible one? Why (not)?
(15 Marks)
The file submitted must be in Word format.
– please put your own opinion about the decision on each cases
– the plagiarism must be under 15%
– each case 2 pages
– try to not use payable sources