1. Damages Hawaiian Telephone Company entered into a contract with Microform Data Systems, Inc. (Microform), for Microform to provide a computerized assistance system that would handle 15,000 calls per hour with a one-second response time and with a "nonstop" feature to allow automatic recovery from any component failure. The contract called for installation of the host computer no later than mid-February of the next year. Microform was not able to meet the initial installation date, and at that time, it was determined that Microform was at least nine months away from providing a system that met contract specifications. Hawaiian Telephone canceled the contract and sued Microform for damages. Did Microform materially breach the contract? Can Hawaiian Telephone recover damages? Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Microform Data Systems Inc., 829 F.2d 919, Web 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 13425 (United States Court of Appeals for theNinthCircuit) add at list 5 references 2. Ethics Case Executive Financial Services, Inc. (EFS), purchased three tractors from Tri-County Farm Company (Tri-County), a John Deere dealership owned by Gene Mohr and James Loyd. The tractors cost $48,000, $19,000, and $38,000. EFS did not take possession of the tractors but instead left the tractors on Tri-County's lot. EFS leased the tractors to Mohr-Loyd Leasing (Mohr-Loyd), a partnership between Mohr and Loyd, with the understanding and representation by Mohr-Loyd that the tractors would be leased out to farmers.Instead of leasing the tractors, Tri-County sold them to three different farmers. EFS sued and obtained judgment against Tri-County, Mohr-Loyd, and Mohr and Loyd personally for breach of contract. Because that judgment remained unsatis-fied, EFS sued the three farmers who bought the tractors to recover the tractors from them. Did Mohr and Loyd act ethically in this case? Who owns the tractors, EFS or the farmers? Executive Financial Services, Inc. v. Pagel, 238 Kan. 809, 715 P.2d 381, Web 1986 Kan. Lexis 290 (Supreme CourtofKansas) add at list 5 references 3. Failure to Warn The Emerson Electric Co. manufactures and sells a product called the Weed Eater XR-90. The Weed Eater is a multipurpose weed-trimming and brush-cut-ting device. It consists of a handheld gasoline-powered engine connected to a long drive shaft, at the end of which can be attached various tools for cutting weeds and brush. One such attachment is a 10-inch circular saw blade capable of cutting through growth up to 2 inches in diameter. When this saw blade is attached to the Weed Eater, approximately 270 degrees of blade edge are exposed when in use. The owner's manual contained the following warning: "Keep children away. All people and pets should be kept at a safe distance from the work area, at least 30 feet, especially when using the blade." Donald Pearce, a 13-year-old boy, was helping his uncle clear an overgrown yard. The uncle was operating a Weed Eater XR-90 with the circular saw blade attachment. When Pearce stooped to pick up something off the ground about 6 to 10 feet behind and slightly to the left of where his uncle was operating the Weed Eater, the saw blade on the Weed Eater struck something near the ground. The Weed Eater kicked back to the left and cut off Pearce's right arm to the elbow. Pearce, through his mother, Charlotte Karns, sued Emerson to recover damages under strict liability. Is Emerson liable? Karns v. Emerson Electric Co., 817 F.2d 1452, Web 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 5608 (United States Court of Appeals for theTenthCircuit) add at list 5 references 4. Bankruptcy Estate Dr. Morris Lebovitz and Kerrye Hill Lebovitz, husband and wife, were residents of the state of Tennessee. Dr. Lebovitz filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of illness. Mrs. Lebovitz (Debtor) filed for bankruptcy because she had co-signed on a large loan with Dr. Lebovitz. The Debtor is the owner of the following pieces of jewelry: a Tiffany 5-carat diamond engagement ring (pur-chase price $40,000-$50,000), a pair of diamond stud earrings of approximately 1 carat each, a diamond drop necklaceof approximately 1 carat, and a Cartier watch. All of these items were gifts from Dr. Lebovitz. Tennessee opted out of the federal bankruptcy exemption provisions and adopted its own bankruptcy exemption provi-sions. Tennessee does not provide for an exemption for jewelry. Tennessee does provide for an exemption for "necessary and proper wearing apparel." Debtor claimed that her jewelry was necessary and proper wearing apparel and was therefore exempt property from the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy trustee filed an objection to the claim of exemption, arguing that the Debtor's jewelry does not qualify for an exemption and should be part of the bankruptcy estate. Does Debtor's jewelry qualify as necessary and proper wearing apparel, and should it thus be exempt property from the bankruptcy estate? In re Lebovitz, 344 B.R. 556, Web 2006 Bankr. Lexis 1044 (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western DistrictofTennessee) add at list 5 references