A, Tarasoff v. Regents ruled that mental health professionals have a duty to protect those who are being threatened with bodily harm by another patient.
Almost certainly, Giles is a strong man. He would preferably pass on than admit to being engaged with witchcraft. Giles neither admits to witchcraft charges nor does he deny them. He declines to stand trial, so he is slaughtered by the substantial weight of stones that press him to death.
While Giles is overcome, he isn't too brilliant. Prior to his passing, he admits that his significant other peruses peculiar books. This puts her under the judgment of being associated with witchcraft. After he raises the way that his better half has been perusing peculiar books, his significant other is blamed for witchcraft. Giles understands his goof and laments having raised the way that his significant other peruses odd books. He understands his significant other is guiltless and perceives that his own behavior has censured her. He profoundly laments opening his mouth against his significant other.
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.
Answer:
what exactly do you mean by "personal goods"? everything you listed was portrayed back in the days.
