Question

Which of the following was the result on appeal in the Case Opener, the case in which Sara Creek Property Company argued that an award of damages, rather than an injunction, was the appropriate remedy in response to its alleged breach of contract by allowing a new pharmacy to move into a shopping mall in competition with Walgreen's?
(A) That the contract had not been breached and that neither an injunction nor damages were appropriate.
(B) That an injunction, as well as damages, were appropriate remedies.
(C) That specific performance, but not an injunction, was the appropriate remedy.
(D) That damages, rather than an injunction, was the appropriate remedy because damages could be calculated.
(E) That an injunction, rather than damages, was the appropriate remedy.

Answer 1

Answer:

E

Explanation:

That an injunction, rather than damages, was the appropriate remedy

The court would have had extreme difficulty in calculating how to adequately determine damages so it were better to rule that an injunction should be the appropriate remedy

Answer 2

Answer: The correct answer is "(E) That an injunction, rather than damages, was the appropriate remedy.".

Explanation:  An injunction rather than damages was the appropriate remedy since in that case, the result was that the court ended up ruling that a precautionary measure would be the most appropriate because determining the adequate calculation of damages would be too difficult.