Please be sure to explain your answers fully, using the law!

$1.$ Annie and Bob have a contract. Annie will provide Bob with raw materials for his ice cream stand. Bob figures to make a profit of $$2000.$ In anticipation of her delivery, Bob sends Annie a deposit of $$100.$ Bob also begins advertising for his upcoming ice cream stand, at a cost of $$400.$ The delivery date arrives, and Annie does not show, breaching the contract. Annie can only pick one measure for damages in her lawsuit. Help her consider her options by answering the following questions.

A$.$Assume Bob sues Annie for breach of contract, and chooses to sue for Expectation damages. How much would he get if he$$s successful?

B$.$ Assume Bob sues Annie for breach of contract, and chooses to sue for Reliance damages. How much would he get if he$$s successful?

C$.$ Assume Bob sues Annie for breach of contract, and chooses to sue for Restitution damages. How much would he get if he$$s successful?

D$.$ Assume Bob sues Annie for breach of contract, and chooses to sue for Specific Performance. What would Bob get if he$$s successful?

$2.$ Regular contracts have three requirements; offer, acceptance, and consideration. UCC contracts only require a general sense of agreement, and that good faith is required between the parties. Another difference between the two is that regular contracts can have "substantial performance," but UCC imposes "Perfect Tender." What is the Perfect Tender rule? How does it work?

$3.$ By law, customers are entitled to express warranties $($if offered$)$ and implied warranties. What are the three implied warranties that a consumer can expect? What protections does each provide?

$4.$ I asked you to take a look at various Ethical frameworks. let$$s try them out on the following scenario.

Imagine you are in charge of issuing contracts on behalf of your city or town. The biggest project out for bid right now is a bridge repair. You receive three bids; two are from contractors who have done successful repairs for you before, and the third is from a new company. The new company puts in a bid for $40-60\%$ less than the other two companies. You call them to see if their bid is accurate $($or too good to be true$),$ and not only do they confirm it$,$ they offer to give you a cash bribe for choosing their bid.

$1.$ Under Kantianism, why would accepting the bribe $($and the bid$)$ be unjust? Explain using both of Kant$$s two categorical imperatives.

$2.$ Under Utilitarianism, is it possible that accepting the bribe $($and the bid$)$ is just? Be sure to explain the pros and cons of the decision.

$3.$ Under Social Contract, what social norms could apply in this situation? Which norms or rule do you think residents of the city or town WANT to apply?