In Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC v. Sandip, Inc, ...

[cookcarl]

In Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC v. Sandip, Inc, where Dunkin' Donuts claimed that Sandip breached their franchise agreements and Sandip protested that Dunkin' Donuts was not allowing them a reasonable chance to sell the franchise, the court held that:
 a. Sandip had the right to continue using Dunkin' Donuts' marks until they sold the buildings
  b. Dunkin' Donuts was not entitled to terminate the lease agreement because there was a suitable buyer
  c. Dunkin' Donuts was not entitled to terminate the lease agreement, even though there was no suitable buyer d. Sandip had the right to terminate the lease agreement and sell the buildings to whoever they wanted
  e. none of the other choices are correct

Question 2

The Sherman Act expressly holds illegal:
 a. a business that grows so large that it dominates a market
  b. discrimination in prices between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality c. a business that raises its prices, where the effect may be to lessen competition
  d. all of the other specific choices e. none of the other choices

[ansleighelindsey]

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

e

[cookcarl]

Wow, this really help

[ebonylittles]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it