222.

Attached below is the case facts for the question and the question is boldened and highlighted.

Case Facts: Farmer (Frederica Dagg) use fertilizer on her large land for her grass to ensure good growth. Fertilizer produces nitrous oxide, which can affect environment. JDC (Jane Deere Company) have imported equipment called "nitro eliminator" which is manufactured in holland. Machine significantly reduces emissions from fertilizer. Warning on machine says: "Thls machine wlll significantly reduce the nltroue oxlda amleslone caused by fertiliser. A: It Is a new machine, we recommend you test It from time to time to check whether It Is effective." After six months of extensive use, local [ggapuhj iwi who owns extensive land 2km away and produces manuka honey contacts farmer. Unknown to farmer, machine is defective and has actually been increasing the nitrous oxide emissions. This has affected environment and caused significant rainfall which has impacted W business. Rainfall has reduced how many bees have taken flight, so less pollination of manuka flowers which resulted in less honey production. It damaged hives as the beekeepers could not do maintenance on the hives due to rain. Strong scientific evidence, which suggest the damage to the hives and owers was caused by rainfall. More evidence shows that rainfall surrounding farmers land has increased since machine was added to land and used. W approaches rm. ugapuhj has suffered: $1 million in damages to repair and restore damaged hives. $1 million to replant trees and flowers as damage incurred to them has made them less productive. $5 million in lost revenue due to production decrease. $1.5 million in lost revenue due to public knowledge of the damage incurred. JDC state they would never have imported and sold machine had they been aware of the defect. JDC also argue that liability shifts to farmer due to message on machine. Farmer never tested machine, states it was "brand new" and did not have necessary testing equipment. Farmer states hey have done nothing wrong. Company which manufactured machine in holland is out of business. Ngapuhi approaches law rm stating that they want to bring charges on Farmer through Ryland v fletcher, and charges to JDC company via Donoghue v Stevenson. Create Legal oginion which can be presented to a layer which analyses key issues and comes to iustified conclusions about the likely outcomes of the case. Only use the following cases: Rylands v Fletcher CM 73 Read v Lyons CM 76 Rickards v Lothian CM 79 Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leathers CM 88 Hamilton v Papakura District Council CM 97 Nottingham Forest Trustee Ltd v Unison Networks Ltd CM 100 Donoghue v Stevenson CM 103 Grant vAustralian Knitting Mills CM 108 Jul! v Wilson & Horton Limited CM 118 Bowen v Paramount Builders Limited CM 123 4b