1. Martin and Williams, two business partners, agreed that eachwould insure his life for the benefit of the other. On hisapplication for insurance, Martin stated that he had never had anyheart trouble when in fact he had had a mild heart attack someyears before. Martin’s policy contained a two-year incontestableclause. Three years later, after the partnership had been dissolvedbut while the policy was still in force, Martin’s car was struck bya car being negligently driven by Peters. Although Martin’sinjuries were superficial, he suffered a fatal heart attackimmediately after the accident—an attack, it was established, thatwas caused by the excitement. The insurer has refused to pay thepolicy proceeds to Williams. Does the insurer have a valid defensebased on Martin’s misrepresentation? Explain. Does the insurer havea valid defence based on Martin’s misrepresentation? Explain I havethe answer to question one I need the answer to question 2 & 32. In Exercise 1, was it necessary for Williams to have aninsurable interest in Martin’s life to recover under the policy?Why? 3. In Exercise 1, if Williams had taken out the policy ratherthan Martin, could the insurer defend the claim on the ground thatat the time of Martin’s death, Williams had no insurable interest?Why?