Lauren barton, a single mother with three children, lived in portland, oregon. cynthia vanhorn also lived in oregon until she moved to new york city to open and operate an art gallery. vanhorn asked barton to manage the gallery under a one-year contract for an annual salary of $72,000. to begin work, barton relocated to new york. as part of the move, barton transferred custody of her children to her husband, who lived in london, england. in accepting the job, barton also forfeited her husband’s alimony and child-support payments, including unpaid amounts of nearly $30,000. before barton started work, vanhorn repudiated the contract. unable to find employment for more than an annual salary of $25,000, barton moved to london to be near her children. barton filed a suit in an oregon state court against vanhorn, seeking damages for breach of contract. should the court hold, as vanhorn argued, that barton did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages? why or why not? (see

Richardson hired j.c. flood company, a plumbing contractor, to correct a stoppage in the sewer line of her house. the plumbing company's 'snake' device, used to clear the line leading to the main sewer, became caught in the underground line. to release it, the company excavated a portion of the sewer line in richardson's backyard. in the process, the company discovered numerous leaks in a rusty, defective water pipe that ran parallel with the sewer line. to meet public regulations, the water pipe, of a type no longer approved for such service, had to be replaced either then or later, when the yard would have to be excavated again. the plumbing company proceeded to repair the water pipe. though richardson inspected the company's work daily and did not express any objection to the extra work involved in replacing the water pipe, she refused to pay any part of the total bill after the company completed the entire operation. j.c. flood company then sued richardson for the costs of labor and material it had furnished. (c) for what, if anything, should richardson be liable? explain."