Ch25Q#1
Product liability; defect. There was no design defect. There was sufficient warning on the product. The fact that the landlord did not extend the warning to the tenants is not the responsibility of the product manufacturer. Hot water is hot - this simple fact does not allow recovery in this case. The landlord is liable for transferring any information of harm or danger to the tenants. The maker of the product manufacturer fully disclosed the information and did exactly what it is required to do.

Ch26Q#11
Adequate assurances of performance. The court held that the seller had the right to stop work on one special production contract when the buyer had not paid on a contract for standard goods already delivered. The buyer had not paid in a substantial amount of time and the seller had the right to be concerned about payment for specially manufactured goods. Demanding assurances was justified even though the non-performance was on a different contract.

Ch27Q#1
Statute of limitations. Firwood's resale may have taken three years, and the contract goods may have been sold as parts, but Firwood acted in good faith in trying to mitigate damages because there simply was no market for PCIs at the time of General Tire's breach. Firwood acted in good faith and pursued buyers diligently over that three-year period. While the time period may be less than optimal and the sale of the goods as parts not always desirable, Firwood did the best it could, given the market following the breach. Firwood should recover the contract price difference of $187,513 and interest.
Ch27Q#4
Lost profits. The jury rendered its verdict on November 19, 2003, finding that Dallas and Lam had entered into contracts for equipment and/or services, and that Dallas had breached the contracts. The jury awarded Lam damages in the amount of $11,419,545. The court also awarded prejudgment