Assume that in the mid 1800’s a passenger ship sank during a storm in the atlantic ocean, less than 200 miles off the east coast of the united states. many of the passengers were gold miners, bringing gold from california. it was estimated that two million dollars of gold was lost when the ship went down. several insurance companies (including underwriters and others) paid claims for the lost gold. in 1986 a corporate group used new technology to discover the gold, now estimated to be worth one billion dollars. the corporate group claimed ownership of the ship and its contents. the insurance companies (and others) that had paid out claims on the lost gold, claimed they owned the gold. do your best to answer the questions without additional research. a. based on these facts and on what you have learned from your textbook, explain whether the gold is mislaid, lost, or abandoned property. you will need 2-3 sentences to define the terms and to apply them to the facts. b. explain whether your answer to part (a) would change if you knew that the insurance companies had destroyed all their records concerning the claims, and that the insurance companies had made no effort to find the lost gold once the technology became available to do so. you will need 2-3 sentences to explain your answer. c. assume that the trial court applied the common law of finds (the court applied the common law regarding mislaid, lost, and abandoned property, just as you were asked to do above.) on appeal, the appellate court stated the correct law to apply is the "common law of salvage." read the link below* to understand salvage. what would the corporate group who found the gold be entitled to as "salvors" of the gold? d. as a matter of public policy, we want mariners to other mariners who are in trouble at sea. courts will consider public policy when deciding cases. based on what you now know, why do you think the appellate court applied the law of salvage rather than the law of finds?