Answer :
Final answer:
The 'rule' from National Biscuit Co. v. Stroud and Somers v. Dooley cases is not specified in the question, making it challenging to identify and reconcile them. Generally, these cases influence the understanding of partnership law. The 'rule of reason' in antitrust law assesses the legality of business practices based on their reasonableness rather than market power.
Explanation:
The rule from National Biscuit Co. v. Stroud (1959) and Somers v. Dooley (1971) are two cases that address different aspects of partnership law. However, the initial question seems to be incomplete as it does not specify the 'rule' it is asking about, making it challenging to reconcile both cases without further context.
In general, court cases like these contribute to our understanding of business law, specifically how partnerships operate and are viewed under the law. The student may be asking about how each case impacts the doctrine of partnership authority or liability.
If we are to discuss the 'rule of reason' applied in antitrust law, as evidenced in other Supreme Court cases, that principle dictates that the legality of a particular business practice depends on its reasonableness and effect on market competition, rather than strictly on the company's market power.
Meanwhile, to 'reconcile' typically means to find a way in which two seemingly conflicting things may be brought into agreement. Although without specific 'rules' being noted, we cannot directly reconcile these cases, we can generally say they both inform nuances within partnership and antitrust law based on the specifics of each case.