Which of these describes the difference between a pidgin and a creole?

Which culture is an example of a horticultural society?

Which of these is an example of international culture?

A retail store ordered 100 women’s swimsuits at $10 each, as advertised in the catalog of a swimwear manufacturer. The manufacturer shipped 40 swimsuits to the store, along with a letter stating in relevant part: “We have shipped you 40 swimsuits at $10 each in response to your recent order. Please remit $400. Be informed that limited inventory will prevent us from being able to ship any additional suits at this time or at any time during this year’s beach season.” The store took the 40 suits and began to sell them. The store immediately sought an alternate supplier of swimsuits. The best price it could obtain was $11 per suit from a different company. The store ordered, received, accepted, and paid for 60 suits at $11 each from the other company. The store has refused to pay the manufacturer the $400, and the manufacturer has sued for payment. What is the manufacturer entitled to recover?

The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries suffered when the defendant’s car struck the plaintiff as she was crossing a busy intersection. The plaintiff planned to have a bystander who had witnessed the accident testify on her behalf, but he died prior to trial. At trial, the plaintiff called the wife of the bystander to testify that, although she had been facing the other way, she had heard her husband exclaim, “My God, the woman was crossing on the green light!” Over objection, the statement was admitted as an excited utterance. The defendant now wishes to call the bystander’s friend, who is prepared to testify that, a few hours after the accident, the bystander said to him: “You know that accident I saw this afternoon? The driver didn’t run a red light. The light was yellow.” Should the friend’s testimony be admitted over the plaintiff’s objection?

A utility company working underground installed a guardrail around its access hole for safety. Although the guardrail completely surrounded the hole, there was an opening in one part of the rail to make it easier to pass down tools to those working below. The owner of a show dog living across the street from the utility access hole frequently walked his dog in his front yard without a leash. One afternoon, the dog unexpectedly chased a squirrel out of the dog owner’s yard and ran through the opening of the guardrail, falling into the open hole and suffering broken bones and internal injuries. Although expert veterinary care saved the dog’s life, the dog was no longer of “show quality” after the injuries. The dog owner brought a negligence claim against the utility company to recover his economic losses resulting from the injuries to his dog. At trial, the dog owner presented the above facts. The utility company presented uncontested evidence that the guardrail used by the company meets typical industry standards, and that the opening in the guardrail was not large enough for a person to have fallen through. At the close of the evidence, the utility company moved for a directed verdict. What should the court do?

The defendant was on trial for statutory rape. He denied that the alleged victim was even in his presence on the night of the alleged offense, when he was working as the night clerk at a convenience store. The prosecution offers to have a witness testify that, in a phone conversation on the evening in question, the victim, who is available to testify at the trial, said that she had to leave because the defendant wanted her to stop by the store while he was working. The defense objects to the proposed testimony. Should the court allow the witness’s testimony?

To fight drug abuse, a state enacted a statute forbidding the selling of model airplane glue  to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. The statute also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Neither the legislature nor the courts of the state have abolished the common law tort defense of assumption of the risk. The owner of a hobby shop in the state sold a large tube of airplane glue to a 15-year-old boy who reasonably appeared to be at least 18 years old. The boy had received drug education in his school, as mandated by the statute, including coverage of the dangers of glue sniffing. The boy understood the anti-drug instruction, but  he wanted to experience it for himself. The boy sniffed the glue repeatedly and suffered perma- nent brain damage. If the boy’s parents file suit on the boy’s behalf against the store owner, for whom is the court likely to rule?

A child was severely injured at an amusement park when she was ejected from a ride that went slightly off its track. The ride malfunctioned as a result of a manufacturer’s defect, but had the child been properly secured in the ride’s seatbelt by one of the ride operators, she would not have been injured. The child was unable to identify which ride operator improperly buckled her in. In the child’s suit against the amusement park, who will win?

A real estate investor purchased a home by taking out a $160,000 mortgage. After a few months, he sold the home to a buyer. According to the terms of the agreement signed by the parties, the buyer took the house “subject to the mortgage” and agreed to “assume payment of” the mortgage. A recession struck the area and the buyer found himself in financial difficul- ties. The buyer sold the home to a company that buys otherwise unsellable houses. Under the terms of the agreement signed by the parties, the company agreed to take “subject to the mortgage.” All deeds and the mortgage were properly recorded. After two months, the company ceased making mortgage payments. The bank that held the mortgage unsuccessfully demanded payments from the company, the buyer, and the investor. The bank properly instituted proceedings to foreclose, and the house was put up for judicial sale. Because the recession had severely depressed property values, the house sold for only $120,000. After the $120,000 was applied to the mortgage, $37,800 was still owing on the principal amount. From whom can the bank seek judgment to cover the deficiency?