Mr. and Mrs. Lacroix purchased a fireplace insert from Dan's Hearth Shop. Dan's was the only local distributor and installer of such units in the town in which the Lacroix's lived. Dan's supplied the unit with the requisite chimneypieces and also performed the installation. Within a month, the Lacroix's revisited Dan's shop to complain about the performance of the fireplace. In particular, they complained that the unit was prone to chimney fires. Dan came to Lacroix's home to inspect the unit but could not find any evidence of chimney fires. He further advised the Lacroix's to burn only dry wood in the insert and to have the chimney cleaned. On several other occasions, the Lacroix's complained to Dan about chimney fires and eventually demanded their money back. Dan refused and claimed that the fault was not in the fireplace but in the Lacroix's failure to operate it properly and to have the chimney cleaned. The following week Mrs. Lacroix placed the following advertisement in the local newspaper: 'FIREPLACE INSERT' - Comes equipped with rusting steel flue connector. Locally purchased, installed by local vendor, used only 3 months. Poor quality material and workmanship. Has proven record of chimney fires. Brass kettle will be thrown in. Phone 97-62734 after 5 p.m.'

1. If Dan's Hearth Shop wanted to take legal against the Lacroix's, what tort(s) could they establish? Describe the elements of the tort(s) you've identified. Without considering remedies or defenses at this stage, do you think Dan's Hearth Shop would succeed in establishing each element? Why or why not? (15 pts