51. In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as hoped in product
packaging, the company that bought the adhesive sued the seller for a tort called:
a. defamation
b. fraud
c. intentional misrepresentation
d. conversion
e. none of the other choices
52. In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as hoped in product
packaging, Squish La Fish sued the adhesive seller for negligent misrepresentation because:
a. Squish La Fish was the foreseeable user of Thomco’s representations concerning the adhesive
b. Squish La Fish felt that Thomco gave false information about the adhesive‘s removability
c. Squish La Fish felt that it relied on Thomco’s false information about the adhesive
d. all of the specific choices
e. none of the specific choices
53. In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as hoped in product
packaging, Squish La Fish sued the adhesive seller for negligent misrepresentation because:
a. Squish La Fish could not use the adhesive because it was the wrong color
b. Squish La Fish felt that Thomco gave false information about the adhesive‘s removability
c. Thomco raised the price of the adhesive after Squish La Fish agreed to buy it
d. all of the specific choices
e. none of the specific choices