Jan and Pam work in a shoe store, Pam's Magical Shoes, owned by Pam. Pam tells Jan, her employee, to never sell more than $3$ pairs of shoes to a customer without checking with her first. Pam reminds Jan several times that she is not authorized to sell more than $3$ pairs of shoes without informing Pam first.

Pam is out getting her nails done when a customer enters the store and asks Jan for assistance. Jan says, $"$Of course, I am a sales associate here." Jan is wearing a name tag that states, "I am Jan, Sales Associate of Pam's Magical Shoes". Jan manages to sell the customer $10$ pairs of expensive designer shoes for $$20,000$ total. Jan forgot that she was supposed to tell Pam first when the purchase was for more than $3$ shoes. Jan is paid minimum wage and has only worked at Pam's Magical Shoes for $2$ days.

The customer sues Pam and Pam's Magical Shoes because the $10$ shoes were all "knock$-$off" imitations of the real brand and worth no more than $$20$ each.

In the customer's lawsuit against Pam and Pam's Magical Shoes, the court

Group of answer choices

will likely find Pam and Pam's Magical Shoes liable along with Jan because the customer had reasonably believed that Jan had the authority to sell her all of the shoes, hence under the doctrine of apparent authority the principle is liable for the agent's contract

will dismiss the case against Pam's Magical Shoes because Jan was an independent contractor with no authority to transact with customers

will dismiss the case against Pam and Pam's Magical Shoes because Jan did not have written authorization from Pam to sell more than $3$ pairs of shoes to any customer

will dismiss the case because Jan did not have express authority to contract for more than $3$ pairs of shoes with the customer, therefore Pam and Pam's Magical Shoes are not liable