Please reference the syllabus for the expectation required of a Discussion Board response. The response is not opinion but a substantiated analytical answer. Please respond specifically to the query and then to one peer for credit. Discussion Board closes at 11 p.m. on the DUE DATE. When you work through a discussion board activity, for full credit you must have a posting of your answer with a reference to where you obtained the information (your text is often the easiest, on-line research on the topic will enhance your answer and your grade) and you must post a second answer responding to a classmate with either a question or comment. "l agree" is not enough analysis for a second answer. You must back up your work with explanation or an outside source. Based on the text reading regarding Torts and Warranties respond to the following: o = R TR T 1Y A New Jersey man adopted a cute pit bull from an animal-rescue organization. The dog, named Melo, had been housed for several weeks at the Brooklyn Animal Control Center (BACC) because his owner had been evicted (forced to leave his home by court order) and was no longer able to care for the animal. Thereafter BACC brought it to an animal rescue organization that assists in locating adoptive placements. BACC included an advisement with the canine against placing it in a home with children. It had been assessed by a BACC volunteer as follows, \"When approached in his kennel, Melo freezes in the back of the kennel, hard stares and lip curls, low growls, and then charges the front of the kennel while hard barking." Two weeks later a subsequent assessment included the following, \"It seems Melo has finally acclimated and is letting his guard down - revealing the sweet, playful affectionate boy | knew was always there! The man who acquired Melo from the rescue association was advised of the second assessment but not the first. Within a day of bringing the pit bull home, it locked its jaws on the leg of the man's nine year old daughter while she sat on a swing in her backyard. Her 13 year old brother came to the rescue and was able to pry the dog's teeth from the young girl's leg. In the process, Melo turned on the brother and bit his nose, reportedly almost off. Both children were rushed by ambulance to a hospital. The nose required numerous stitches to repair. Releasing the dog to an adoptive family without disclosing the warnings about its aggressive nature and incompatibility with children is negligent, meaning careless or failed to act as a reasonable person would act under the circumstances. Likewise, release of the dog to a family with kids, knowing that it had exhibited aggression, was negligent. If the rescue organization did not ask if the man had children, that too would be negligent given the circumstances. Another cause of action (ground on which to sue) is provided by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (laws relating to sales and other commercial transactions adopted in virtually all fifty states). The UCC covers goods, which are moveable things including animals. A pet that is sold is considered a good and so comes with an implied warranty of merchantability, meaning a guarantee implied in contracts for sale of goods that the items sold are fit for their ordinary purpose. A dog sold as a pet typically should be affectionate, playful, reasonably gentle, and capable of providing companionship to its owner. A dog that is aggressive is not fit to be a pet in a family with children. Another applicable guarantee is express warranty, a written or stated promise made by the seller about the characteristics of a good. Here, the rescue organization represented that Melo was sweet, playful and affectionate. This description was not accurate and so violates the express warranty. Note: Dog rescue organizations sometimes give rather than sell dogs to good homes. If the transfer of ownership of Melo was a gift, the UCC warranties would not apply. After Melo attacked the two youngsters, he was euthanized, meaning put to death in a humane way (least painful and quick). Most states have laws that permit euthanizing a dangerous dog, but only after the owner's due process rights are honored. This means the owner is entitled to a fair legal procedure at which the dog's temperament is explored. A hearing must be held and the owner must be given the right to cross-examine witnesses and present mitigating evidence. If a decision is made by the court that the dog is dangerous, the judge can impose numerous sanctions depending on whether the dog attacked a person or another animal. These include neutering or spaying, microchipping, evaluation by a certified behaviorist and training if indicated, payment for any doctor or vet bills incurred by the victim, and muzzling and/or use of a leash whenever the dog is in public. While the laws vary from state to state, euthanasia is usually an option only when the dog causes serious physical injury to a human, or attacked more than once another animal