Mr. Snarey devised and conducted a fraudulent scheme while working as an agent of Mutual Life. What would the likely result be? Group of answer choices

Neither the agent nor the company could be liable, because Snarey was only an agent, and the company had no actual knowledge.

The company could be liable only if it were shown Snarey was an employee acting under the direction of a superior.

Only the agent was liable, because the action taken was dishonest and therefore outside the scope of the agency relationship.

The doctrine of caveat emptor was applied.

Since Snarey was an agent with authority to enter into this general type of transaction, the company was vicariously liable for his conduct.

The most common type of tort on the internet is: Group of answer choices

inducing breach of contract.

conspiracy.

battery.

defamation.

cybersquatting.

Jones offers to sell Smith his car. Smith thinks Jones is selling his 2009 Toyota, and Jones thinks he is selling his 2012 Pontiac. This is an example of which of the following? Group of answer choices

shared mistake

misunderstanding

one-sided mistake

a mistake

fraudulent misrepresentation

Which of the following is correct with respect to restrictive covenants included in employment contracts? Group of answer choices

When employers require employees to enter into such agreements long after the initial hiring, it becomes part of the initial employment contract and does not require new consideration.

For such a clause to be valid, it is only necessary to show that it was needed to protect the employer's interest.

Such restrictive covenants are always void and have no place in employment contracts.

The imposition of such a restriction is at the option of the employer and the employee has no say in the matter.

Such restrictive covenants are enforceable in court if reasonable in that they are necessary to protect the employer's interests and go no further than necessary to achieve that goal.