In Mogilevsky v.Rubicon Technology,Inc. ,the case in the text,the court upheld the jury's verdict that:
A)Rubicon was liable for conversion.
B)Rubicon could not remove the system because it had become attached to the real estate.
C)Rubicon could not remove the system because its damage to the real estate would be vast.
D)the system in dispute was a removable trade fixture.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court held that the jury was entitled to determine that the system was a removable trade fixture,and that Rubicon was not liable for conversion.

In Mogilevsky V