In aversive conditioning experiments to treat alcohol addiction, every time a person drinks an alcoholic beverage, he or she also consumes a mixture that induces nausea. In classical conditioning terminology, the nausea-inducing agent is the .

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?

Sara and her friends were at an iowa football game in iowa city. sara is a life long resident of iowa and goes to college at dmacc. while she was in iowa city, robert smashed into her car when he ran a red light. sara was seriously injured and taken to university hospitals in iowa city (fortunately her injuries were not life threatening but laid her up for a long time and she had to drop out of college for the rest of the semester). robert is from michigan and was in iowa city to see the game and then to party later. at the time of the accident robert was drunk (at least legally - he blew a 0.17 and the limit is 0.08). sara has sustained about $500,000 in damages between her current and future medical bills, pain/suffering, lost wages, etc. also her car was totaled in the accident. can sara sue robert in a federal court? explain why or why not. (be sure to mention the two primary factors associated with suing someone in a federal court in a case like this.)

Horton automatics and the industrial division of the communications workers of america, the union that represented horton’s workers, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. if an employee’s discharge for a workplace-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was reasonable and whether the employee had violated it. when horton discharged employee ruben de la garza, the union appealed to arbitration. the arbitrator found that de la garza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but “was not totally convinced” that horton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations. the arbitrator ordered de la garza reinstated. can a court set aside this order