B pete since the brewery breached an express warranty

This preview shows page 11 - 14 out of 14 pages.

b. Pete, since the brewery breached an express warranty. c. The brewery, since Pete does not come into court with "clean hands." d. The brewery, because the theft of the beer will be regarded as unforeseeable. Feedback
The correct answer is: Pete, because his injury was proximately caused by the negligence of the brewery. Question 17 Correct Mark 5.00 out of 5.00 Flag question Question text Power Co operated a nuclear power plant on the seashore just outside the city and sold electricity generated by its operations to city residents. To cool its equipment, Power Co drew water from the ocean and piped it through portions of its plant. Because this operation made the water highly radioactive, the power company stored used water in a series of large concrete holding ponds. The water stored in this fashion was subjected to a series of procedures designed to "neutralize" it by removing the radioactivity before it was returned to the ocean. Because of an earthquake, one of the concrete holding ponds cracked, permitting several million gallons of neutralized water to escape. Although the escaping water was not radioactive, it caused substantial damage to the fields of Farmer as it passed over them. If Farmer asserts a claim against the power company for damage to his realty, the court should find for Select one:
Question 18 Correct Mark 5.00 out of 5.00 Flag question Question text Sarah, crop duster sprayed insecticides onto growing crops from an airplane that she flew within 15 feet of the ground. In locating the fields of her customers, she used a map that the county published for that purpose and that identified every
parcel of real estate in the area by a parcel number. Frank hired Sarah to spray his fields with insecticide. Frank knew that his farm was identified on the county map as parcel 969, but by mistake he told Sarah that it was parcel 999. As a result, Sarah sprayed the farm that the county map identified as parcel 999. That parcel belonged to Pete, who had contracted to grow his crop without chemical insecticides and to sell it to an organic produce distributor. As a result of Sarah's spraying, Pete was unable to fulfill his contract and sustained serious economic losses. If Pete asserts a claim against Sarah for damages resulting from trespass to land, the court should find for Select one:

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture