[Irresponsible Teen] Rose is 17 in a state where majority age is 18. She purchased a prom dress from Your Special Day. She wore it to the prom and then attempted to return it to the store, claiming that she was a minor and that she was entitled to a refund. The dress had clearly been worn and had a purple stain which Rose claimed was from grape juice. Additionally, a few days before she turned 18, Rose purchased a used car from Sal’s Car Savings. She had a deal whereby she paid $100 per month on the car. She drove the car and made payments for six months after she turned 18. Rose then returned the car to Sal’s Car Savings, informed the owner that she was under 18 when she entered into the contract to purchase the car, and told the owner that she was returning the car for a full refund. Sal’s Car Savings claimed the car was a necessity. Rose and her parents disagreed claiming that the parents were ready and willing to provide a car to Rose, and that she only purchased the car from Sal’s Car Savings because she liked that particular style and color. When purchases of the dress and car were made, the sellers knew that Rose was under the age of 18. 56) Which statement about Rose’s attempt to return the damaged dress is true? A) In all states Rose must return the dress; but she has a right to a full refund. B) In all states Rose has the right to keep the dress and get a refund. C) Regardless of what she does with the dress, Rose has no right to a refund in any state. D) In some states Rose would have an obligation of restitution to the store. E) In all states Rose would have an obligation of restitution to the store. 57) Which of the following is true regarding Rose and her parents asserting that the car was a necessary? A) Even if a minor disaffirms a contract for a necessary, the minor will still be held liable for the reasonable value of the necessary. B) Whether or not parents would buy the item at issue is irrelevant in addressing a claim that an item was a necessary. C) A minor may not disaffirm a contract for a frivolous matter that is clearly not required. D) The claim will have no effect because the law does not recognize the concept of necessaries when minors are involved. E) Social status is irrelevant as a matter of law in addressing a claim that an item was a necessary. 58) Which statement applies in the dispute between Rose and Sal’s Car Savings, considering that she waited to turn 18 before attempting to disaffirm the contract? A) An implied ratification occurs when parents agree to accept the debt entered into by a minor. B) If Rose caused any damage whatsoever to the car, she was said to have impliedly ratified the contract. C) Rose was required to expressly ratify the contract before she could be bound to it. D) Rose was required to expressly ratify the contract before she could be bound to it so long as no damage was done; but if she did any damage to the car, as a matter of law, she is said to have impliedly ratified it. E) So long as, after reaching the age of majority, Rose did not state orally or in writing that she intended to be bound by the contract, then she did not commit an express ratification. Â [Useless Friend] Antoine and Tevis, are roommates. Antoine has Tevis sign a contract promising to wash Antoine’s car once a week for $80 per month in payment. The contract incorporated by reference terms on the back. The terms on the back were in very small print and required Tevis to cook dinner for Antoine, do his laundry, and clean their apartment. Antoine is also very angry with his former girlfriend, Flora, and decides to start rumors that would constitute the tort of defamation. He spreads via SnapChat that Flora cheated on tests and stole from friends. Antoine wants to enlist the help of Tevis in smearing Flora but knows that Tevis would be hesitant to assist in his endeavors. One evening, however, Tevis comes home clearly intoxicated – a fact apparent to Antoine. Antoine has him sign a contract agreeing to defame Flora for $50. When he sobers up, Tevis tells Antoine that he was drunk and that he has no intention of defaming Flora, who also happens to be the best friend of Tevis’s new girlfriend. He also finally takes a look at the contract involving work for Antoine and tells Antoine that the contract is outrageous. 59) Tevis’s assertion that he should be able to avoid the contract involving Flora because he was intoxicated, is best supported by which of the following statements, under the Restatement of Contracts, Section 16? A) Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person rendering the intoxicated person unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction. B) Contracts of an intoxicated person are void only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person rendering the intoxicated person unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction. C) Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person’s condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction. D) Contracts of an intoxicated person are void if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person’s condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction. E) Contracts of an intoxicated person are enforceable because a person should be bound by his or her actions. 60) Tevis’s claim that he had no obligation to defame Flora is supported by which of the following statements? A) Tevis is correct in that he could not be legally obligated to commit defamation. B) Tevis is correct only if it can be proven that the defamation would cause Flora actual injury. C) Tevis is correct only if it can be proven that the defamation is undeserved. D) Tevis is correct only if it can be proven that the defamation would cause Flora money damages. E) Tevis is correct only if it can be proven that he had a prior relationship with Flora. Â Â