Acollege student purchased a large bottle of no-flake dandruff shampoo, manufactured by a shampoo company. the box containing the bottle stated in part: "caution--use only 1 capful at most once a day. greater use may cause severe damage to the scalp." the college student read the writing on the box, removed the bottle, and threw the box away. the college student's roommate asked to use the no-flake, and college student said, "be careful not to use too much." the roommate thereafter used no-flake twice a day, applying two or three capfuls each time, notwithstanding the label statement that read: "use no more than one capful per day. see box instructions." the more he used no-flake, the more inflamed his scalp became, the more it itched, and the more he used. after three weeks of such use, the roommate finally consulted a doctor who diagnosed his problem as a serious and irreversible case of dermatitis caused by excessive exposure to the active ingredients by no-flake. these ingredients are uniquely effective at controlling dandruff, but there is no way to remove a remote risk to a small percentage of persons who may contract dermatitis as the result of applying, for prolonged periods of time, amounts of no-flake substantially in excess of the directions. this jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common-law rules pertaining to contributory negligence and assumption of risk. the roommate asserts a claim for his injuries against the shampoo company based on strict liability in tort. three important facts were established at trial: the roommate misused the no-flake shampoo, the roommate was contributorily negligent in continuing to use no-flake shampoo when his scalp began to hurt and itch, and the roommate was a remote user and not in privity with the shampoo company. which of the following would constitute a defense for the shampoo company? a. the roommate misused the no-flake shampoo. b. the roommate misused the shampoo and was contributorily negligent in continuing to use no-flake shampoo when his scalp began to hurt and itch. c. the roommate was not in privity with the shampoo company. d. the product was substantially changed from the condition in which it was sold