Which of the following is true regarding Rose and her parents asserting that the car was a necessary?
A) The claim will have no effect because the law does not recognize the concept of necessaries when minors are involved.
B) Social status is irrelevant as a matter of law in addressing a claim that an item was a necessary.
C) Whether or not parents would buy the item at issue is irrelevant in addressing a claim that an item was a necessary.
D) A minor may not disaffirm a contract for a frivolous matter that is clearly not required.
E) Even if a minor disaffirms a contract for a necessary, the minor will still be held liable for the reasonable value of the necessary.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The concept of "necessaries" in contract law allows for minors to be held liable for the reasonable value of essential items or services (like food, clothing, shelter, and sometimes education or medical care) that they contract for, even if they disaffirm the contract. This is because these items are considered necessary for their survival or welfare. The assertion that a car was a necessary would fall under this concept, where if it was deemed a necessary, Rose could be held liable for its reasonable value despite being a minor.

Which of the Following Is True Regarding Rose and Her