Case Question 7 on Page 142 of the text reads in pertinent part as follows: Huggins's identity was stolen by an unknown person, who used it to obtain credit cards from various banks in Huggins's name. Huggins suffered the grief of cleaning up the identity theft. He sued the banks and credit card companies for negligence for issuing credit cards without more verification of the identity of the applicant and for failing to adopt other policies to prevent successful identity theft. Huggins v. Citibank, 595 S.E.2d 275, Sup. Ct., S.C. (2003). Here is the url to the Supreme Court of South Carolina's decision: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/sc-supreme-court/1339775.html In three distinct written sections, please do the following: (1) Summarize the holding and rationale of the Court's decision in the case. (2) With an eye towards how a decision like this could affect society as precedent, explain whether you agree or disagree with this decision and why. (3) Explain how this case is both similar and dissimilar to Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Company, excerpted at pp. 125-126 of our text. In other words, if Palsgraf were decided in the same jurisdiction as this case, how would you argue both for and against its applicability to this case