I ONLY NEED QUESTION 2F!

I ONLY NEED QUESTION 2F!

2A. What is the difference between general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction? 2B. The 1945 decision, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, allows businesses to be sued based on their business activities in a state, regardless of their consent. What does International Shoe say about jurisdiction and what factors determine whether a business is subject to jurisdiction? 2C. The article states that "Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch questioned whether Norfolk Southern's consent was actually coerced on these facts." What does this mean? 2D. They are a big company, if they consented to something, doesn't that end the conversation? 2E. What was it that Norfolk Southern did that signaled its consent to jurisdiction? 2F. What are some examples where people or companies consent to things, which are later determined to be not enforceable? Do not make this question harder than it is, think of situations where people get out of performing a contract. You might even find an answer in another question in this assignment