Clu serves in a representative capacity for Digger. Elmo is injured through Clu's negligence. Digger may be liable to Elmo if Clu's conduct occurred
A. due to a propensity Digger was not and could not have been aware of.
B. during normal working hours.
C. in the course and scope of Clu's employment.
D. outside the parties' employment relationship.
Answer: C
You might also like to view...
An importer of computers is required to pay a duty to the government of $100 per computer regardless of the price of the computer. Which type of tariff is described in this example?
a. tariff quota b. compound tariff c. specific tariff d. ad valorem tariff
When a continuous probability distribution is used to approximate a discrete probability distribution, a value of 0.5 is added to and/or subtracted from the
A. area. B. value of x. C. value of z. D. value of µ.
Katina is formatting a scannable version of her resume for her job search. She should
a. italicize business, school, and college names. b. use bullets rather than headings to differentiate the sections of the resume. c. stay with a plain design with no special formatting. d. keep white space to a minimum to make scanning simpler and less time consuming.
Which of the following was the result in the Quickturn Design Sys., Inc v. Shapiro case, which involved a Delaware court's ruling on the "no-hand pill"?
a. As a matter of law the pill was valid as a response to a takeover bid regardless of whether independent proof existed that the directors acted reasonably. b. The pill was valid because the directors established, based upon reliable expert testimony, that the hostile takeover bid presented a dangerous threat to the continuation of the company. c. The pill, which had to be redeemed within one month of a takeover bid or else be allowed to remain in place, was invalid because it impermissibly circumscribed the board's statutory power to manage the business affairs of the company and the directors' ability to fulfill their fiduciary duties. d. The pill, which could not be redeemed for six months following a takeover, was invalid because it impermissibly circumscribed the board's statutory power to manage the business affairs of the company and the directors' ability to fulfill their fiduciary duties.