Adams is a rich boy whose parents supply him with every conceivable necessity of life. While sill a minor, Adam buys a can of tuna fish from a grocery store for $100. Later, Adam decides he wants to disaffirm. Which of the following is true?
a. Adam can disaffirm.
b. Adam cannot disaffirm, but is only liable for the reasonable value of the tuna fish.
c. Adam cannot disaffirm, and is liable for the full $100.
d. The contract is void, so Adam need not bother to disaffirm
2007-04-24 08:02:01 · 6 answers · asked by glock310 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
He is a minor so there goes his contract as void (D).
2007-04-24 08:05:44 · answer #1 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
D~ A minor can not seek into a contract, nor be held liable for a contract entered into.
2007-04-24 18:14:55 · answer #2 · answered by Jeni 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A contract with a minor is not a valid contract. So im choosing D
2007-04-24 15:06:59 · answer #3 · answered by Jon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
d - minors cannot contract so there is no contract to disaffirm.
But, how's he gonna' get his $100 back from the grocery from a practical standpoint??
2007-04-24 15:05:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
D. The contract is void.
2007-04-24 15:07:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
D. because he is a minor
2007-04-24 15:06:56 · answer #6 · answered by shorty 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋