In Lopez v.Kmart Corporation,the case in the text regarding disaffirmance,did the court find the minor plaintiff's disaffirmance of an employment contract to be reasonable?
A)Yes,because the disaffirmance occurred within six months of reaching the age of majority.
B)Yes,because the type of contract at issues was an arbitration agreement.
C)No,because the plaintiff could have disaffirmed the contract when he was under the age of majority but chose not to do so.
D)Yes,because the disaffirmance occurred within one month of reaching the age of majority.
E)The court did not find the disaffirmance to be reasonable.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)In Lopez v.Kmart Corporation,the court found that Plaintiff's disaffirmance
within one month of reaching the age of majority,is sufficiently soon to constitute the "reasonable time" that California's disaffirmance statute envisions.
B)In Lopez v.Kmart Corporation,the court found that Plaintiff's disaffirmance within one month of reaching the age of majority,is sufficiently soon to constitute the "reasonable time" that California's disaffirmance statute envisions.
C)In Lopez v.Kmart Corporation,the court found that Plaintiff's disaffirmance within one month of reaching the age of majority,is sufficiently soon to constitute the "reasonable time" that California's disaffirmance statute envisions.
D)In Lopez v.Kmart Corporation,the court found that Plaintiff's disaffirmance within one month of reaching the age of majority,is sufficiently soon to constitute the "reasonable time" that California's disaffirmance statute envisions.
E)In Lopez v.Kmart Corporation,the court found that Plaintiff's disaffirmance within one month of reaching the age of majority,is sufficiently soon to constitute the "reasonable time" that California's disaffirmance statute envisions.

In Lopez V