Answer:
a. The residential property owner and developer have moved to the nuisance and remedies vary.
Explanation:
Ergonomics was in the area(1967) before the residential properties or projects(1999) came about. Therefore the residential occupants could be said to have moved into the nuisance, knowing full(not being aware not an excuse however) well that Ergonomics was operation in the same area. They would based on this get a different remedial result from a law suit that would only based on consideration for safety of residential occupants of the area.
Answer:
two competing owners of steamboat companies
Explanation:
Answer: Projection.
Explanation:
This is the defense mechanism by which people disguise threatening impulses by attributing them to others.
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.
