With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. at 37, 80 S.Ct. at 508; Fuchs Sugars & Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corp., 602 F.2d 1025, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917, 100 S.Ct. 232, 62 L.Ed.2d 172 (1979); Butera v. Sun Oil Co., 496 F.2d 434, 437 n. 7 (1st Cir.1974). All refusals to deal, however, are not beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that When the manufacturer’s actions, as here, go beyond mere announcement of his policy and the simple refusal to deal, and he employs other means which effect adherence to his resale prices, this countervailing consideration [the right of the manufacturer to decide with whom to deal] is not present and therefore he has put together a combination in violation of the Sherman Act. Parke U.S. 707, 723, 64 S.Ct. 805, 813, 88 L.Ed. 1024 (1944) (<HOLDING>); Parke, Davis, 362 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 503, 4

A: holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion
B: holding that more  than mere acquiescence of wholesalers to a resale price maintenance scheme constituted a violation of section 1
C: holding that the prosecutors burden to prove that consent was voluntarily given cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority
D: holding that the defendants acquiescence to a mistrial constituted implicit consent precluding a later claim of double jeopardy
B.