Messenger operates a messenger service in Atlanta and has two employees who deliver their messages on motorcycles. Retailer owns a motorcycle sales and repair business, selling new and used motorcycles and repairing and rebuilding them. When Messenger approaches Retailer to discuss the purchase of a motorcycle for use in the former's messenger service, Retailer offers to sell a rebuilt bike that was involved in a collision. The collision destroyed the front portion of the motorcycle, which was manufactured by the Yamahashi Corporation Retailer rebuilt the front wheel assembly using parts manufactured by the Harold Davidoff Parts Company (HDP) with a front fork built in his own machine shop.

Three weeks after Messenger purchased the rebuilt motorcycle, Employee was riding it on the freeway while making a delivery. The front fork buckled, causing a spill which severely injured Employee. Messenger's delivery business was reduced in volume by one-third for two weeks until a substitute was found for Employee.

Assume for the purposes of this question only that the accident that injured Employee occurred because the wheel manufactured by the HDP collapsed. If Employee asserts a claim against HDP, he could plausibly advance the following theories of liability:

I. Negligence, based on negligence per se.

II Neglience, relying on res ipsa loquitor.

III. Respondeat superior.

IV Strict Liability

A. I, II, and IV, only.

B. II and IV only

C. I and III only.

D. II and IV only