In Naples v. Keystone Building and Development Corp. in which the Naples sued Keystone for the cost of repairing major problems in the house Keystone built for the Naples, the state supreme court held that:
A) since there was no contradiction of the expert witness's testimony regarding the cost of repairs, the Naples should be compensated adequately for the damages caused by the defendants' breach of contract
B) since there was no contradiction of the expert witness's testimony regarding the cost of repairs, the Naples should not be compensated adequately for the damages caused by the defendants' breach of contract
C) since there was a contradiction of the expert witness's testimony regarding the cost of repairs, the Naples should not be compensated adequately for the damages caused by the defendants' breach of contract
D) since the defendant did not produce an expert witness, the Naples should be compensated adequately for the damages caused by the defendants' breach of contract
E) none of the other choices are correct

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The state Supreme Court held that since there was no contradiction of the expert witness's testimony regarding the cost of repairs, the Naples should be compensated adequately for the damages caused by the defendants' breach of contract. This means that the court accepted the expert witness's testimony and ruled in favor of the Naples, awarding them compensation for the cost of repairs.

In Naples V