d. All of the above.
In the Bigelow-Sanford, Inc. v. Gunny Corp. case, the court found:
a. the buyer did not purchase substitute goods in good faith and without unreasonable
delay.
b. the Code permits a buyer to cover by buying substitute goods if the buyer acts in
good faith and without unreasonable delay.
c. since the buyer did not specifically allocate the spot market replacements to the
individual sellers’ accounts, the cost of cover could not be determined in this case.
d. the buyer was required to obtain cover and its failure to do so bars other Code
remedies.
In the Moore v. Kitsmiller case, the Texas Court of Appeals held that:
a. the burden of proof of the affirmative defense of contributory negligence was on the
plaintiff to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. it was unreasonable for the jury to infer that Moore was contributorily negligent.
c. the affirmative defense of contributory negligence requires proof both that the
plaintiff was negligent and that this negligence proximately caused his injuries.
d. foreseeability does not require that a person of ordinary intelligence should have
anticipated the danger created by a negligent act or omission.