in Adel v Greensprings of Vermont, the case in the text involving the plaintiff receiving Legionnaire's Disease from water at a ski resort, the court held that Multiple Choice since water is considered a good under the UCC, the warranty of merchantability shoul water ot a good under the UCC and therefore th water though a good under the UCC, does not get the protections of wananses due to its fuidity and where it comes from although weter is a good under the UCC, there is way to determine for sure that the plaines injuries resulted from the ski resort the UCC does not consider weter as a tangible good because there is no one supplier of water
in Adel v Greensprings of Vermont, the case in the text involving the plaintiff receiving Legionnaire's Disease from water at a ski resort, the court held that Multiple Choice since water is considered a good under the UCC, the warranty of merchantability shoul water ot a good under the UCC and therefore th water though a good under the UCC, does not get the protections of wananses due to its fuidity and where it comes from although weter is a good under the UCC, there is way to determine for sure that the plaines injuries resulted from the ski resort the UCC does not consider weter as a tangible good because there is no one supplier of water
Related questions
Question
dd
![In Adel v. Greensprings of Vermont, the case in the text involving the plaintiff receiving Legionnaire's Disease from water at a ski resort, the court held that
Multiple Choice
since water is considered a good under the UCC, the warranty of merchantability should apply to a case
water is not a good under the UCC and therefore there can be no warranties
water, though a good under the UCC does not get the protections of warranties due to its fluidity and where it comes from
although weter is a good under the UCC, there is no way to determine for sure that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from the ski resort
the UCC does not consider weter as a tangible good because there is no one supplier of water](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2F5a30a535-522f-4ec3-b9d8-e0a4f3683682%2Fb7b2faa7-9706-4c6a-8030-de7149443a12%2F65b9ne_processed.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:In Adel v. Greensprings of Vermont, the case in the text involving the plaintiff receiving Legionnaire's Disease from water at a ski resort, the court held that
Multiple Choice
since water is considered a good under the UCC, the warranty of merchantability should apply to a case
water is not a good under the UCC and therefore there can be no warranties
water, though a good under the UCC does not get the protections of warranties due to its fluidity and where it comes from
although weter is a good under the UCC, there is no way to determine for sure that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from the ski resort
the UCC does not consider weter as a tangible good because there is no one supplier of water
Expert Solution
![](/static/compass_v2/shared-icons/check-mark.png)
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
![Blurred answer](/static/compass_v2/solution-images/blurred-answer.jpg)