Answer:
The answer is C The difference between the value of the camera accepted and its value if it had been as warranted, medical costs for treating the grandfather's burns, and the cost to replace the grandfathers coat.
Explanation:
(C)When a buyer accepts goods that turn out to be defective, he may recover as damages any "loss resulting in the normal course of events from the breach," which includes the difference between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, plus incidental and consequential damages. Incidental damages resulting from the seller's breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, and transportation, care, and custody of goods rightfully rejected. In this case, the grandfather incurred no incidental damages. Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach include any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise, and injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty. Here, the grandfather is entitled to breach of warranty damages for the loss of the camera—the difference between the value of the camera accepted and its value if it had been as warranted—plus damages for injury to his person (e.g., medical costs for treating the grandfather's burns) and property (i.e., the cost to replace his coat) because they were proximately caused from the breach of warranty. Thus, (C) is correct, and (A) and (B) are wrong. (D) is wrong because the cost of hiring the professional photographer was not foreseeable. The seller was not told of any particular requirements and needs of the grandfather at the time of contracting nor would the seller have reason to know that the grandfather planned to use the camera to take pictures of his grandson's graduation and would hire a professional photographer if he lost the use of the camera.
A: It creates momentum for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
To answer your first question, there are a lot of positive things about South Africa since the end of Apartheid. The most obvious being that races from all colors have access to better education and have an equal chance at getting work. There has been massive spending on infrastructure, making South Africa the most developed country on the African continent, including the building of speed trains, upgrading of airports, freeways, and hundreds of thousands of new homes for previously disadvantaged communities. The country went through an economic boom period since 2000, and because of good economic policies that govern our banks, South Africa did not suffer as badly as Europe or the US during the recession of 2008-2009, although there were also a lot of jobs lost.
<span>For the second question.</span>
<span>There are many, reasons why there are still problems 15 years after Apartheid. You have to keep in mind that there was a lot of damage done during the 40 years of apartheid, because of the separate development of black communities and white communities. But the country shows signs of improvement. Crime is one of our main concerns and especially aggravated crime. Although it does not affect tourists as much. The biggest reasons that there are still problems, is problems that are true for all African countries, and that is corrupt leaders that can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar (meaning that they only making themselves rich from taxpayers money, instead of delivering services). The other reason is the communist mentality of a lot of leaders. There are not enough taxpayers to cater for all the unemployed people. But like I said, there are many, many reasons</span>
<span>For the third ones.</span>
<span>I think the US should pay attention to what happens in South Africa, to pressure South African leaders not to follow corrupt policies. </span>
For the last one.
<span>The legacy of racism in the US has a lot of similarities, but also a lot of differences. Remember that in South Africa, it was a minority government that used violence, intimidation to suppress a majority. It was also during the Cold War, and the South African government was against the communist policies of the black politicians. </span>
<span>In the US, it was a white majority government that used to suppress a minority, but usually through exclusion and discrimination. Unfortunately, racism is prevalent all over the world, especially in Australia, Germany, and Britain.
</span>That's the end of my very long answer.
Answer:
Sugars, Starches, and Fiber
Explanation:
Answer:
Social factors that contribute to increased risk for adolescent substance use include deviant peer relationships, popularity, bullying, and association with gangs.
Explanation:
