Final answer:
Minors have the right to disaffirm contracts to protect them against their lack of experience and potential exploitation. The ability to disaffirm does not give the other party the right to disaffirm and doesn't obligate them to do business with all minors. Whether a bicycle is a 'necessary' might affect the minor's right to cancel the contract.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Ted, a minor, signed the contract to purchase a bicycle from Fred, the owner of the bike shop, he retains the right to disaffirm the contract. Generally, the law allows minors to disaffirm (i.e., cancel) contracts to protect them from their lack of experience, fraud, and undue influence. However, if the bicycle were considered a "necessary" (basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter), Ted might not have the right to disaffirm the contract because such contracts are often upheld to ensure that minors can acquire essential items.
Given the options provided:
- Fred does not have the right to disaffirm the contract just because Ted is a minor; this right typically lies with the minor.
- Whether the bicycle is considered a 'necessary' will depend on the circumstances, and this classification would determine if Ted's right to disaffirm the contract is valid.
- Even though Ted can disaffirm the contract, this does not affect the fact that Fred is bound by the contract unless Ted does indeed disaffirm it.
- Ted's right to disaffirm solely affects his ability to cancel the contract and does not require Fred to deal with all minors.
So, the best response based on the options given and usual legal standards is that Ted's right to disaffirm does not alter the fact that Fred is bound by the contract, which makes option 3 the most accurate answer. However, it is essential to note that legal rulings can vary by jurisdiction and specifics of the situation.