Peter Pan Equestrian Ltd(Peter Pan) wanted to increase the amount of natural light in its horse-riding arena. It decided to purchase a skylight system from Skylights-R-Us-Ltd (Skylights),which duly supplied and installed metal frame acrylic skylights on the north and south sides of the riding arena. Unfortunately, the skylights soon began to experience problems with humidity, condensation, and leaking. As well, the acrylic itself began to crack. In response to complaints by Peter Pan, Skylights suggested that Peter Pan add supplemental heat to the building as well as install a proper ventilation system. They had previously made this suggestion to Peter Pan when negotiating the contract but Peter refused. Peter Pan refused, again saying that it had been supplied with defective skylights. Now the skylights are riddled with cracks and are beyond repair. Peter Pan has now sued Skylights for breach of contract and is seeking damages to replace the skylights as well as undertake mould remediation work in the riding arena. What is the argument that Peter Pan has failed to properly mitigate? If that argument is successful, what impact does this have on Peter Pan’s damage claim? What other weaknesses do you detect in Peter Pan’s case?