Answer:
a per se violation of antitrust law.
Explanation:
The antitrust laws can be defined as those laws that are created by the US government to protect consumers from unfair means of competition in market. The aim of creating such laws is to ensure the protection of customers from corruptive business practices and also to ensure safe healthy competitive environment among same business companies.
<u>In the given scenario, the Association of Organic Food Growers is violating the antitrust law by boycotting farmers, ranchers, etc. The antitrust laws are violated by companies in several ways among them is by boycotting</u>.
Boycotting can be defined as an agreement between several companies that excludes a group of customers or market to avert them from buying aanyy goods or products.
This boycotting agreement is a per se violation of antitrust law.
Answer:
B. is not liable because Mike was on a frolic of his own.
Explanation:
Mike who is a dispatch rider, decided to see his girlfriend, Jackie, who lived 50 miles off his pizza route. He had an accident while driving to his girlfriend's, and injured a pedestrian, Chuck due to his negligent driving.
Under the circumstances, Frank's Pizza isn't liable because Mike was on a frolic of his own. Mike embarking on a 50 mile drive to see his girlfriend is frolicsome and outside the scope of his employment as a delivery agent.
Hence, this will absolve his employer from any liability as he wasn't working on the designated route at the time.
Not sure but I'll take a chance: Probably product existance. If not then product capture
I would say FHA, from what I know.