Question

In a majority of states, a minor cannot avoid a contract if the minor cannot return all of the benefits received from the other person?

a)True
b)False

Answer 1

The statement about minors not being able to avoid contracts if they cannot return benefits is false; minors can generally avoid contracts due to lack of legal capacity. The Necessary and Proper Clause has not limited, but expanded federal power. The mother country did not acquiesce to colonists' demands in the Conciliatory Proposition.

Step-by-step explanation:

The answer to the student's question is b) False. In many states, minors can disaffirm (or avoid) contracts due to their lack of legal capacity, regardless of whether they can return all benefits received. This legal concept is known as infancy doctrine and serves to protect minors from being bound by contractual obligations that they may not fully comprehend. However, some exceptions exist for contracts involving necessities where a minor can be held responsible for the reasonable value of goods or services.

In response to Exercise 9.3.1, the statement that 'The necessary and proper clause has had the effect of limiting the power of the national government' is b. False. The Necessary and Proper Clause actually provides flexibility for the national government to carry out its enumerated powers and has been interpreted to allow for a broad exercise of federal power.

Regarding the historical aspects mentioned, for Exercise 8.1.3, the Conciliatory Proposition did not result in the mother country giving in to most of the demands of the American colonists, making the answer b. False.