32. In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the
former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of
the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke
sued, the courts held that the former employer had interfered with prospective business relations.
a. True
b. False
33. In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the
former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of
the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke
sued, the courts held that the former employer was not liable for improper interference as that tort is not
recognized in Minnesota.
a. True
b. False
34. In the 19th century, consumers bore more of the cost of product-related injuries.
a. True
b. False