@Andrew Simonian I agree! The reasonable person in the manufacturer’s position would not have foreseen that the product would injure persons with the doctor’s allergy because this is a negligence action, and negligence depends on whether the defendant breached a duty of reasonable care. A manufacturer has a duty to warn or protect against reasonably foreseeable risks, but it is not required to guard against unknown or highly unusual allergic reactions that a reasonable manufacturer could not anticipate. Here, the doctor’s reaction resulted from a rare scalp condition that made him uniquely allergic to one of the ingredients. If a reasonable manufacturer would not have foreseen that the product could harm people with that rare allergy, then the manufacturer did not act unreasonably and therefore did not breach its duty of care. The other choices are weaker because they do not address the negligence issue of foreseeability. The manufacturer’s personal lack of awareness is not enough if a reasonable manufacturer should have known of the risk, and the fact that another company manufactured the product does not automatically relieve liability. Likewise, whether the doctor read the label does not matter much because the injury stemmed from the unforeseeable allergic reaction itself.

@Andrew Simonian 😂

Yes, Junior bunny will will if he sues boss bunny for breach of contract. The governing law is common law since this is a transaction involving services as the point of it is to fill all the eggs with jelly beans. There is a valid contract here since boss bunny made an offer asking Junior bunny to "fill all the eggs with jelly beans" then Junior bunny made a counter offer saying "ok as long as you pay me $100" and boss bunny accepted saying "sure." When boss bunny added more eggs to the pile later, he made a modification to the original offer since the deal was to fill all the eggs that he pointed at for $100. There was no mutual assent or new consideration for this modification, so it is not valid. There may be an interpretation issue here since one may interpret "all the eggs" differently. Here, all the eggs most likely represents the specific pile of eggs that Boss Bunny pointed at, not a growing pile of eggs. Junior completed performance on his end by filling all the eggs that were a part of the original deal. Boss bunny refusing to pay would be a breach of contract since Junior bunny completed the agreed upon work and is entiltied to his $100.

Anticipatory Repudiation is an unequivocal expression that a party will not perform when performance is due. A mere expression of doubt or inability to perform is insufficient but may constitute a reasonable ground for insecurity. Here, Kim's statement that she "may not be able to perform the contract" is not a repudiation because repudation requires there to be a clear and unequivocal expression by the party that they will not perform such as saying "I cannot perform", but her statement just expresses uncertainty. Since it is not a repudiation, Peter can demand for adequate assurance as Kim's statement raises insecurity.

@Kimberly Farina thank you!