Which of the following is true under the Restatement of Contracts, Section 16, regarding the claim of Charles that he should be able to avoid the contract involving Tessa because he was intoxicated?

A. Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicatedperson's condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction
B. Contracts of an intoxicated person are void if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person's condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.
C. Contracts of an intoxicated person are enforceable because a person should be bound by his or her actions.
D. Contracts of an intoxicated person are void only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person. E. Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person.

A. Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person's condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.

Explanation:

According to the restatements of contracts, section 16. It states that contracts entered into by an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant if the other party had reason to know that because the condition of the intoxicated person, the individual was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or is unable to act in a reasonable manner in respect to the transaction.

Therefore, the contract is as a result rendered voidable and of no legal value.

anticipatory breach of contract

as the name suggests, an anticipatory breach is a breach of contract before the time of performance. so, if a promisor denies to perform his promise and signifies his unwillingness before the time for performance, then it is an anticipatory breach of contract.

and

actual breach of contract

while an anticipatory breach is before the time of performance, an actual breach of contract is on the scheduled time of performance of the contract. an actual breach of contract can be committed either.

hope this . : )

explanation: legitimacy is liking the laws. or like being legit (real).

-tanqr