Answer in short summaries and post as quick as possible thank you

JOE went to PETE's paint store and told PETE that he wanted a paint that would cover aluminum siding effectively. PETE stated to JOE, "I've got just the paint you need. It is called COVER-ALL. It is the best paint for painting aluminum siding." JOE bought the paint.. While at PETE's store, JOE also picked out a painting ladder, that PETE also sold, and purchased that as well. JOE took the paint and ladder home and proceeded to paint his home. Just as JOE finished painting the last board on the house, the step on the ladder on which he was standing broke, throwing JOE to the ground and breaking his leg. Three (3) months later, JOE noticed that the siding on the house was falling apart. Upon chemical analysis, it was proven that the paint JOE had used to paint his house had reacted with the aluminum siding causing it to fall apart. JOE was forced to put up new siding on his house. JOE now sues PETE's paint store for damages saying that it was PETE's fault that the siding was destroyed. JOE also sues PETE for medical and other damages caused by his fall from the ladder he purchased from PETE. Question 1 JOE VS. PETE (JOE's claims for damages for both the Paint and Ladder) On what legal grounds (LAW(s)-Defenses) could JOE claim that PETE is responsible for all of his damages? Set forth the exact LAW(s) that JOE could use to support his Grounds (claim) (Defenses) in order to have PETE pay him damages from both the paint and his fall from the ladder. Question 2 JOE VS. PETE (Possible Responses from PETE to JOE's claims) What Legal Responses, if any, could PETE use to defeat JOE's claims for damages from the paint and the fall from the Ladder. Who would prevail in the lawsuits? JOE or PETE? Why, or why not, would JOE prevail