Which of the following is false regarding defenses to liability under CERCLA?
a. A defense to liability is that the release of hazardous substances was caused solely by
an act of God, such as an earthquake.
b. A defense to liability is that the release of hazardous substances was caused solely by
an act of war.
c. A defense exists for purchasers of brownfields, contaminated sites that are eligible for
cleaning and reclaiming with assistance from the Superfund.
d. A defense exists if the defendant is less than 50% at fault for the contamination.
Answer:
Fact Pattern 7-1
Prudence offered to sell her car to Danny for $3,000. Danny was not sure what to do, so
he asked Prudence if she would hold the offer open for him for one week for $50.
Prudence said sure, and the parties signed a contract to the effect that Prudence would
hold the car. A few hours later, Bobby unexpectedly offered Prudence $3,500 for the
car, and Prudence sold it to him on the spot. Danny decided to buy the car, but when he
came by to pick it up the next day, it was gone. Prudence gave Danny his $50 back
telling him that was her only obligation and that if he had any complaints, he could take
it up with Bobby. Danny found a similar car the next week for $3,500 and purchased it.
Refer to Fact Pattern 7-1. What damages, if any, could Danny likely collect against
Bobby in litigation over the car?
a. None
b. Reliance damages consisting of $500
c. Incidental damages consisting of $50