Question 3 (1 point] Tesla manufactures and sells cars. It does not use a franchise model but instead sells direct to consumers. Using your understanding of the legal structure of franchise relationships. why would Tesla want to operate without franchisees? O 1] A direct sales channel allows Tesla more control over the sales process and allows it to potentially gain more prot than if it had to share some profit with a franchisee. O 2] Tesla reduces its risk and saves time and money by operating directly and setting up its own sales channel. Question 4 (1 point] If a car dealer is sued based on statements made to a buyer by a salesperson. what argument would the car dealer be likely to make to defend itself? 0 ll that the salesperson's comments were mere puery. O 2] that the salesperson was ignorant of the law. 0 3] that the salesperson's comments formed the basis of the bargain. O 4] that the salesperson created an express warranty. Question 5 l1 pointJ What's the benefit of having a "per se" standard in antitrust law versus just evaluating every case under the "rule of reason"? O 1] The per se standard allows for the court to fully consider the facts in each case before reaching a conclusion. 0 2] The per se standard provides for a lower fine for cases brought by the FTC. O 3] The per se standard provides more certainty for what is and what is not illegal. Questioning. , A franchise agreement relating to a product states that the franchisor will not sell any other franchises in the franchisee's exclusive territory. The franchise agreement is silent as to internet marketing. Sometime later. the franchisor begins to market the product over the internet. and the franchisee begins losing business. The franchisee sues for encroachment. O 1] the franchisee probably loses because the franchise agreement did not grant any internet rights to the franchisee. 2] the franchisee probably loses because the franchisor's internet sales do not physically encroach on the fmnchisee's exclusive territory 0 3] the franchisee probably wins because the franchisor has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Question 3' E Smith wants to buyI a used car. He goes to Crane's Used Cars and buys a used car. A week later the police show up at school. inform Smith that the car had been stolen by the person who sold it to Crane's Used Cars. The police take the car away from Smith. and now he sues Crane's Used Cars. Assume that lCrane's Used Cars told Smith. we are not sure of the history of this car and cannot vouch to the title of the car. Accordingly, Crane's put in the purchase agreement, the car is sold "as is with no warranty of title." The contract further stated: "Buyer is acquiring the vehicle 'as is' and 'with all lauli5.' seller only conveys such right and title that seller has and seller makes no express or implied warranties." Now who wins? 0 1] Smith wins because warranties cannot be disclaimed bysuch language. 0 2] Clane's Used Cars wins because the disclaimer effectively disclaims the implied warranty of title. 0 3] Smith wins because the warranty of title is not an "implied warranty" for purposes of such a disclaimer