Case of Perez v.Stern on page 919-920

LEGAL REASONING QUESTIONS 1. If the children had sutiered no harm as a result of the stramney's malpractice, would the outcome of this case have been different? Why or why not? 2. Why did the court atfirm the dismissal of Guidos individual claim but not the claims that she had brought on behalf of the children? 3. If one of the children had not been a minor at the time of the father's death, the court would have dismissed that child's claims against Stern, even though the child was an intended beneficiary. Is it fait for the low to treat differently from other children with regard to a statute of limitations? Why or why not? 4. How might Stern, or anyone in a similar position, have avoided the negative result in this LEGAL REASONING QUESTIONS 1. If the children had sutiered no harm as a result of the stramney's malpractice, would the outcome of this case have been different? Why or why not? 2. Why did the court atfirm the dismissal of Guidos individual claim but not the claims that she had brought on behalf of the children? 3. If one of the children had not been a minor at the time of the father's death, the court would have dismissed that child's claims against Stern, even though the child was an intended beneficiary. Is it fait for the low to treat differently from other children with regard to a statute of limitations? Why or why not? 4. How might Stern, or anyone in a similar position, have avoided the negative result in this