What was the ruling in Lopez v. Kmart Corporation, the case in the text regarding whether a minor could disaffirm an arbitration clause in an employment contract?
A) Plaintiff did not enter into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer because he was a minor, and therefore the agreement was a nullity.
B) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer, but the employer properly exercised its right to void the contract.
C) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer, but the employer failed to exercise its right to void the contract.
D) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer, but properly exercised his statutory right of disaffirmance, thereby rescinding the arbitration contract and rending it a nullity.
E) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer, but did not properly exercise his statutory right of disaffirmance, thereby he was required to arbitrate.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The ruling in Lopez v. Kmart Corporation was that the plaintiff, being a minor, had entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer but properly exercised his statutory right of disaffirmance, thereby rescinding the arbitration contract and rendering it a nullity.

What Was the Ruling in Lopez V