Filip, 61 yeаrs оld, lives in Frаnklin Cоunty, Ohiо, аnd suffers from advanced dementia. Filip’s sister Doris went to court in 2024 and presented evidence of Filip’s dementia to a judge, who declared Filip mentally incompetent and appointed Doris as his guardian. One year later, Filip went to a local furniture store, Regal Furniture, also in Franklin County, and purchased a dining room set for $11,000, to be paid in monthly payments over two years. After making the first two payments, Filip stops paying. Regal Furniture (plaintiff) sues Filip (defendant) for breach of contract, demanding the balance as damages. Filip’s attorney argues this is not a valid contract and, therefore, Regal Furniture cannot recover any damages. Regal argues that Filip had purchased furniture from their store four times in the last 15 years, and had always paid the balance in full until this most recent purchase. Total word count (not including name or other headings) must be between 300 – 500 words, and all answers must be in complete sentences, and in paragraph form (no lists or bullet points). (RULES): What test will the court apply to determine if this is a valid contract? Identify and explain (at least two sentences per part) each of the four parts of the test as they are identified and explained in the textbook and lecture only. (APPLICATION and CONCLUSION): You are the judge. Apply each part of the test you identified in question 1 (don’t stop at just one) and arrive at a conclusion (supported by case law) as to whether 1) this is a valid contract and 2) based on your response, who do you rule in favor of – plaintiff or defendant. Explain your answer. In your answer, you must include case law support. Remember from our work early in the semester that legal decisions must be supported by precedent. Thus, you must identify a relevant case (by full name) that is posted to Modules, Week 3, that would be binding on this court in this case. Once you have identified the case, your answer must show how the facts and holding (not the outcome, but the rule of law the court created) supports your conclusion/holding in this case.