Buyers and sellers entered into a contract for the sale of nuts. the usual route used the suez canal. prior to shipment, a war closed the canal. because the freight charges would be so high by another route, the seller refused to ship. the buyer had to buy at a higher price elsewhere and sued the seller. at triala. the seller will win based on the doctrine of frustration of purpose. b.the buyer will win since this is just a risk of doing business. c.the seller will win because of res ipsa loquitur. d.the buyer will lose because problems with shipment by sea are an excuse for nonperformance.

b.The buyer will win since this is just a risk of doing business.

Explanation:

In a general agreement or contract between a seller and the buyer both the parties are liable to perform some duties binding the contract.

In case any of the parties fail to perform such duties then that party is liable to make good to other party which did not default.

In the given case the buyer is in good health, it was because of the seller that the goods could not be delivered, and it was because of uncontrollable circumstances.

And that the seller is still liable because ultimately the goods could not be delivered.

Thus, the buyer shall stand to win the case against the seller.

i would prefer to go with the news article for nate, its recent and updated and stores a lot of information

answertaxable income;