The Case of the Faulty Air-Conditioning SystemThe Cajon Theater purchased a large air-conditioning system from Blair Manufacturing Co for its 1,000 seat facility. The system was purchased and installed in April, prior to the start of the summer season. The sales contract contained a statement that the system would provide sufficient cooling for 1,500 people to a maximum temperature of 72 degrees. The statement further said, “The seller makes no express warranties for this product.” At the beginning of June, it became apparent to Cajon that the system did not work property; it provided cool air, but not enough to enable patrons to be fully comfortable. Cajon complained in writing to Blair about the air-conditioning system and withheld payment but continued to use the machine during the summer months because there was not enough time to order another system; without any air conditioning at all, the theater would have had to close down. All three efforts by Blair to repair the system failed, and at the end of the summer, Cajon demanded that Blair take the machine back. Blair refused to accept the machine and brought suit against Cajon for the purchase price. The TrialCajon testified that the temperatures during the summer in the area where the theater was located were extremely warm and that air conditioning was absolutely essential to enable patrons to feel comfortable during the showing of movies. The theater stated that it relied on the wording in the sales contract that the system would produce sufficient cooling. It further stated that it could not return the air-conditioning system immediately after delivery because the theater would have had to close down and lose its customers for the entire summer. The theater also stated that returning a large system involved a great deal of effort and expense and that it did not want to return the system until it had obtained significant use from it.The Arguments at TrialBlair’s attorney argued that the specific wording in the sales contract disclaiming any express warranties prevented Cajon from claiming that the system was defective. They further argued that the theater should have returned the system immediately when it discovered that the system was faulty. They also argued that when the theater used the system for three months, and received many benefits from it, it automatically gave up its right to rescind the contract and return the system.Cajon’s attorneys argued that because of the size and weight of the system and the costs involved in returning it, Cajon had a legal right to use the system for a reasonable amount of time and then return it. They further argued that the statement in the sales contract that the system would produce sufficient cooling outweighed the importance of the statement that there were no express warranties. The theater also argued that by keeping the machine and getting some benefit from it, it was able to mitigate its damages. Otherwise, the theater could have held the manufacturer responsible for the loss of profits.Questions to Decide: Who has the stronger arguments, Cajon or Blair? Why?You are the jury hearing the case, for whom would you decide on the question of the alleged warranty? Why?You are the jury hearing the case, for whom would you decide on the question of the right to rescind the contract? Why?What do you think the law should be with regard to a problem of this nature involving something that is not easily returnable?

QUESTION 11.Apply the statutory language to the following scenario: You come upon a Toyota minivan that ran off the roadway crashing into a sign. The driver states to you, “Usually I make this turn, see I drive this way everyday on my way into work. I promise that I was probably going to speed limit - probably under by at least 10 mph. You see, I have this list here of the exact time that it takes me to get to work every day; I was going to have my best time yet!” Your written answer should:state whether the incident should be charged as a violation of Careless Driving, Reckless Driving, or neither. provide a brief explanation/rationale for your choice.include the full statute code including subdivision (if you are suggesting there is a charge of Careless driving or Reckless Driving). QUESTION 21.Apply the statutory language to the following scenario: Over the last 5 hours 10 inches of fresh snow have fallen and the crashes on the roads have finally subsided. You come upon a vehicle that is completely alone in a parking lot of the mall doing doughnuts and power slides in the snow. It is 1AM so the mall parking lot is completely empty and not a sole is in sight. You stop and talk to the driver, who is a 45 year old female who states that she is just out joyriding (and she shows no indication of impairment). Your written answer should:state whether the incident should be charged as a violation of Careless Driving, Reckless Driving, or neither. provide a brief explanation/rationale for your choice.include the full statute code including subdivision (if you are suggesting there is a charge of Careless driving or Reckless Driving).QUESTION 31.Apply the statutory language to the following scenario: You are called out to the largest farm in your county to a vehicle rollover. Upon arriving you find that the Anderson kid, a 32 year old male, was driving his pickup truck in the mud pit that they have on their farmland. While showing off for some friends that were back at the barn (about 300 yards away) he was doing doughnuts and drifting, throwing mud all over when his pick-up caught a rut rolled over on its side. He was possibly traveling 15 mph at the max. Your written answer should:state whether the incident should be charged as a violation of Careless Driving, Reckless Driving, or neither. provide a brief explanation/rationale for your choice.include the full statute code including subdivision (if you are suggesting there is a charge of Careless driving or Reckless Driving).QUESTION 41.Apply the statutory language to the following scenario: You have made your rounds in the county when you happen to drive by the local fishing spot out on Lake Johnson. This time of year the area is crammed with fish houses, the majority of them have wisps of smoke coming out of the chimney and cars parked by the doors. In the middle of a group of about 10 fish houses you spy a Subaru hatchback spinning and accelerating around in a circle. They are doing doughnuts and drifting in and around the fish houses. When you stop it, you find two occupants, a 36 year old female driving and a 32 year old male in the passenger seat. Crazy enough, they are completely sober and don’t show any signs of impairment. Your written answer should:state whether the incident should be charged as a violation of Careless Driving, Reckless Driving, or neither. provide a brief explanation/rationale for your choice.include the full statute code including subdivision (if you are suggesting there is a charge of Careless driving or Reckless Driving).