HELP!!! Barker operated a retail bakery, Davidson a drugstore, Farrell a food st
ID: 469969 • Letter: H
Question
HELP!!!
Barker operated a retail bakery, Davidson a drugstore, Farrell a food store, Gibson a gift shop, and Harper a hardware store in adjoining locations along one side a single suburban city block. As the population grew, the business section developed at the other end of the city, and the establishments of Barker, Davidson, Farrell, Gibson, and Harper were surrounded for at least a mile in each direction solely by residences. The city adopted a typical zoning ordinance, the provisions of which declared the area including the five stores to be a "residential district for single-family dwellings." Thereafter, Barker tore down the frame building which housed the bakery and began to construct a modern brick bakery. Davidson found her business increasing to such an extent that she began to build an addition that would extend the drugstore to the rear alley. Farrell's building was destroyed by lighting which caused a fire, and he started to reconstruct it with the intention of restoring it to its former condition. Gibson changed the gift ship into a spoiling goods store and after six months of operation decided to go back into the gift ship business. Harper sold his hardware store to Hempstead and Hempstead immediately continued on with the hardware business. The city building commissioner brings an action under the zoning ordinance to enjoin (means stop) the construction work of Barker, Davidson, Farrell and to enjoin the carrying on of any business by Gibson and Hempstead. Assume the ordinance is valid. Which of the following is the correct result? None of the five have done anything illegal and can carry on. Baker and Davidson violated the ordinance and will have to stop, but the other three can continue on. Baker, Davidson, and Gibson violated the ordinance and have to stop, but because a lightening fire is an act of God, Farrell can rebuild and he and Hempstead are not in violation of the ordinance. Baker, Davidson, and Farrell are in violation of the ordinance and have to stop, but Gibson and Hempstead are not in violation of the ordinance. Baker, Davidson, Farrell, and Gibson are in violation of the ordinance and have to stop, but Hempstead is not in violation of the ordinance.Explanation / Answer
Answer B is correct.
As City building commissioner wants all the five should not extend the work. They should hold the construction work.
So Baker has no right in constructing a modern brick bakery. Davidson should extend her business to rear alley.
Gibson is getting back in to gift shop business, so there is nothing wrong. Farewell can rebuild because lighting fire is an act of God. Harper sold his store to Hampstead. So there is nothing wrong because there is no extra construction work as per the ordinance.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.