Puppy Woes. Sam promised to sell Linda a Welsh Corgi puppy for $$300$ but backed out of the deal. Linda sued Sam in state court for breach of contract. Linda asked for a jury in her complaint. During jury selection, one juror, Ann, said that she did not think they could be fair to Linda because Linda did not appear to be a dog lover. Linda asked that Ann not hear the case, and the judge excused Ann. Linda also decided that another juror, Sandy, looked at her in a grumpy manner so she asked the judge to excuse that juror from serving. The judge did so$.$ After the jury was chosen, Linda made a statement to the jury, as did Sam. Linda then called to the witness stand a friend of hers, Brenda, who heard the discussion held between Linda and Sam regarding the purchase of the puppy. Brenda testified under questioning by Linda that she heard Linda say that she would pay $$300$ for the puppy and that she also heard Sam say that he would sell the dog for that amount. Unfortunately for Linda, Brenda also testified in response to questioning by Sam that Sam distinctly told Linda that he would only sell the puppy to her if Linda came with cash for the puppy within seven days. Linda did not show up with the money for ten days and Sam had already sold the dog to someone else. The judge ruled in favor of Sam. The challenge to the juror who said that they could not be fair is referred to as a$($n$)$:

Multiple Choice

Challenge for cause.

Approved challenge.

Stipulated challenge.

Fairness challenge.

Peremptory challenge.