Seline operates, as a sole proprietorship, a dog grooming service under the fictitious
name “Grooving to Grooming.” She specializes in preparing her canine clients for dog
shows. Unfortunately, one of Susie’s employees used a bad combination of grooming
products, causing an extreme amount of hair loss on a prize poodle. The poodle’s owner
sued Seline. Seline was not overly concerned, because she had most of her assets in her
own name, and only a small amount of capital invested in her business. Is Seline’s lack
of concern about the safety of her personal assets warranted?
A) no, Seline should be concerned about her personal assets because, as a sole
proprietor, her personal assets may be taken to satisfy any judgment resulting from
employee negligence committed in the “course and scope” of employment
B) no, Seline should be concerned about her personal assets, but only because injury
rather than property damage was involved, and she can, therefore, be sued personally
C) no, Seline should be concerned about her personal assets, but only because she
operated under a fictitious name and she can, therefore, be sued personally
D) yes, Seline is right to be unconcerned, because it is impossible for the plaintiff to
reach her personal assets
E) yes, Seline is right to be unconcerned, so long as she gave customers notice that she
was operating under a fictitious name
Can silence be considered acceptance of an offer?
A) no, not in any circumstance
B) yes, in all circumstances
C) yes, in connection with any offer that clearly indicates that silence will be considered
acceptance
D) In most cases silence cannot be considered acceptance, but there are several
situations where silence can be considered acceptance.
E) only if the parties have no express agreement that silence cannot be considered
acceptance