can you do a basic response to this post: Reply from Janelle Mack Problem 25.3 Answer Ann's claim for $2.3 million in lost profits due to BQ's breach of contract must be evaluated under three key limitations on contract damages: foreseeability, avoidability (duty to mitigate), and certainty. First, regarding foreseeability, damages must be a natural result of the breach or reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was formed (Restatement (Second) of Contracts 351). Here, BQ should have foreseen that denying a franchise could result in lost profits for Ann, as BQ franchises are marketed as profitable, and franchisees expect to earn income from the business. BQ knew Ann was relying on the franchise to enter the fast-food market, and the average annual profit figure of $250,000 supports the foreseeability of profit loss. Second, under the doctrine of avoidability as provided for in Restatement (Second) of Contracts 350, Ann had a duty to mitigate her damages. Courts have found failure to mitigate in cases like Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., 35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929), where the plaintiff could have avoided further losses. BQ argues that Ann failed to do so by not pursuing the Wallyburger franchise, especially since Wallyburger had approved her and was willing to place a restaurant on the same site. However, it is necessary to compare Wallyburger's profitability and brand recognition to BQ's to determine if pursuing that franchise would truly mitigate Ann's l