Also as part of the construction contract, Pete had included an indemnification provision that read as follows: INDEMNIFICATION: YOU AGREE TO PROTECT, INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND DEFEND PETE POBLANO AGAINST ALL ACTIONS, CLAIMS, DAMAGES, DEMANDS, SUITS AND OTHER LIABILITIES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES OF LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, YOU OR YOUR EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND SUBCONTRACTORS BREACH OF ANY TERM OF THIS CONTRACT, OR ANY ACT OR OMISSION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT During Cato's repair work at the restaurant, the liquor wholesaler, who had come to the restaurant to take Pete's liquor order, tripped and fell over Cato's extension cord and tore the ACL ligament in his right knee. Cato had left the extension cord in the middle of the floor after he had finished his work for the day. The wholesaler sued Pete for his injuries, and Pete demanded that Cato pay for all damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Indemnification provision.

D Question 13 2.5 pts If Pete sues to enforce the Indemnification provision against Cato, how is the court likely to rule? O b. The court will rule in favor of Pete because the injury to the liquor distributor was caused by Cato leaving his extension cord in the middle of the floor, and by no fault of Pete. The court will rule in favor of Cato because the Indemnification provision is a pre-injury waiver and therefore void as against public policy. O The court will rule in favor of Cato because the Indemnification provision is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. O The court will rule in favor of Pete because the indemnity is an equitable remedy.D Question 14 2.5 pts If Cato cites the Speedway v. Erwin case in defense of Pete's claim, what is the most likely response by the court? O Because the injury was caused by Cato's actions in this case, Speedway is distinguishable, and the Indemnification provision in this case should be enforced. O The language of the indemnification provision in the Speedway case is nearly identical to the one in the current case, and therefore the Indemnification provision should be invalidated. The circumstances surrounding the injury in the Speedway case are nearly identical to those in the current case, and therefore the Indemnification provision should be invalidated. O The disparity in bargaining power between Cato and Pete should result in the Indemnification provision being invalidated.D Question 15 2.5 pts If it is established that the liquor distributor actually slipped on a wet floor that Pete's employee had just finished mopping, what is Cato's best argument to avoid liability under the Indemnification provision? O Where there is doubt as to the interpretation of an indemnification clause, the interpretation should be against protecting Pete, as the indemnitee, for his own negligence. O Cato lacked bargaining power to revise the Indemnification provision to be more balanced. All pre-injury waivers are void regardless of the circumstances. O All ambiguities in a contract should be interpreted against the party who drafted it