What was the courts CONCLUSION (holding, decision) in the Green Wood Industrial v. Forceman International Development case?Multiple choice question.For Forceman. The $274,868 is the Chinese buyer's own lost profits and should be apportioned according to the parties own liability.Against Forceman. The $274,868 was for the Chinese buyer’s claim which appears to be the Chinese buyer's own lost profits.For Green Woods. The $274,868 was affirmed for the Chinese buyer’s claim, which appears to be the Chinese buyer's own lost profits.Against Green Woods. The $274,868 was for the Chinese buyer’s claim which appears to be the Chinese buyer's own lost profits.

What was the courts ANALYSIS (legal reasoning) in the Green Wood Industrial v. Forceman International Development case? (Choose TWO correct answers)Multiple select question.Forceman asserts the trial court erred in awarding Green Wood $274,868 for a claim made against it by its Chinese buyer.Green introduced no evidence to support the $159,000 award for its lost profits.Substantial evidence supports the $159,000 award for Green Wood’s lost profits.Green asserts the trial court erred in awarding Forceman $274,868 for a claim made against it by its Chinese buyer.

What was the main ISSUE (legal question) in the Green Wood Industrial v. Forceman International Development case?Multiple choice question.Did Forceman present substantial evidence to affirm the $274,868 for the Chinese buyer’s claim?Did Green Wood present substantial evidence to affirm the $274,868 for the Chinese buyer’s claim?Does California law recognize that a plaintiff in a tort action may recover for a “loss reasonably certain to occur in the future"?Does California law recognize that a defendant in a tort action may only recover for reasonably foreseeable losses?

What was the courts ANALYSIS (legal reasoning) in the Green Wood Industrial v. Forceman International Development case?

What was the court's CONCLUSION (decision, holding) in the Cahaba Disaster Recovery v. Rogers case?Multiple choice question.Reversed for International Lining. Rogers is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted.For Cahaba. International Lining is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted by Cahaba.For International Living. Cahaba is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted by InternationalFor Rogers. International Lining is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted by Rogers

What was the court's CONCLUSION (holding, decision) in the Beer v Bennett case?Multiple choice question.Affirmed for Beer. Return of the purchase price to Beer, return of the Fiat to Bennett upon his payment of the judgmentAffirmed for Bennett. Return of the purchase price to Bennett and return of the Fiat to Beer upon his payment of the judgmentReversed for Beer. Return of the purchase price to Bennett and return of the Fiat to Beer upon his payment of the judgmentAffirmed for Bennett. Return of the purchase price to Beer and return of the Fiat to Bennett upon his payment of the judgment