Answer: option 3
Explanation:
Background to the case:
The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis.
Basis of analysis:
Should a risk/benefit analysis be used in situations where a defect in manufacturing could lead to seriously bodily harm and even worse death, such as in the Ford Pinto situation?
Rule of the court:
There hasn’t really been a definite decision about the case and arguments both for and against such an analysis have been made. It is an economically efficient method which has been accepted by courts for numerous years, however, juries may not always agree, so companies should take this into account.
Discretion is expected to be used.
Answer:
Probably not, because Alyssa made a mistake about the dog's value, not a mistake about material fact.
Explanation:
When Sierra offered to sell the dog to Allysa, Allysa failed to discuss the ancestry of the puppy. She wrongly believed the dog came from a line of champions.
On finding out the dog is only worth $200, she will not be able to rescind the contract because the onus to ask all relevant questions about the purchase before accepting is on her.
She made the mistake of assuming the dog was worth $800. She made a mistake about the dog's value and not the material fact.
The incorrect statement is : The income from the TSA is received income tax-free. Upon retirement, payments received by employees from the accumulated savings in tax-sheltered annuities are treated as ordinary income.
