You have tackled each issue clearly, using case law and carefully applying the case law to suggest a solution for each issue. When explaining the rules on private nuisance in the first paragraph, you could cite the cases which set out these main rules.Does nuisance still have to be something that is ongoing, a 'state of affairs' rather than a one-off event? You could perhaps highlight this more. When dealing with the Animals Act, are there more details needed - are there criteria to apply of when an owner is liable?
Regarding the pony, is there also a place for a possible negligence claim here - if Tim negligently failed to repair a hole in the fence, or negligently left the gate open etc. It may be that there is no need to go down this route, as strict liability is easier to prove. John's retaliation is more likely to be just battery - did he put Tim 'in fear'? Often a spellchecker brings up 'tortuous' rather than 'tortious' and this appears in your next paragraph!Regarding the public nuisance, what is the likely outcome - say for example the residents banded together to get something done - what are the options?

Note from system: No grade awarded, default to C grade.

You seem to suggest that Warehouse made the offer, then needs to accept it - when Warehouse said is there a discount for buying in bulk, this may not be the offer - see Harvey v. Facey.Also be careful with the idea that Warehouse needs to 'validate' the contract in writing - a purely oral contract is usually valid. For a case on specifying the mode of acceptance, see Holwell Secutities v. Hughes. Note that in the Brinkibon case, it was said that a telex message RECEIVED in office hours could be valid, even if not read immediately. It seems unclear whether the postal rule applies to e-mail. There is the Electronic Communications Act 2000 - does this apply at all to the type of contract involved in this question?

Note from system: No grade awarded, default to C grade.