Bradie went to Logon drugs and bought some light bulbs for the hallways of his new apartment building. A tenant asked for one and Bradie gave him one but told him he was responsible for getting his own from now on. The bulb, manufactured by Burnaby Brite Ltd. and sold to Logon Drugs by Dandy Distributors Ltd., was defective, improperly made. It exploded and caught some curtains on fire. The tenant's apartment suffered $6,000 damage; he had to move out. He couldn't live there while repairs were being undertaken and had no choice but to find another place. It would take three weeks to get the apartment liveable again. On these facts which of the following is false? The tenant could sue Logon Drugs for breach of contract or negligence because his loss was caused by the defective light bulb. Logon Drugs had not really caused the damage, but it could still be sued by Bradie for breach of contract. Logon drugs cannot sue the manufacturer for breach of contract even though the manufacturer was at fault. Logon drugs could sue Dandy Distributors for breach of contract although it was not at fault for the damage. The manufacturer could be sued in contract by Dandy Distributors but could be sued by others only for the Tort of negligence.