Minority Overkill
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
14436_telescope-ruth-original · CONTRACTS · Choice ANothing, because there was no new consideration for Ruth's promise after she reached the age of majority.
Why it's attractive
The choice says 'no new consideration.' You know that a post-majority ratification is enforceable without new consideration. This choice fabricates a requirement that the rule specifically eliminates.
Why it's wrong
The choice says 'no new consideration.' You know that a post-majority ratification is enforceable without new consideration. This choice fabricates a requirement that the rule specifically eliminates.
14436_telescope-ruth-original · CONTRACTS · Choice B$100.
Why it's attractive
The $100 was the original contract price. Ruth's post-majority promise modified the amount to $75. Only the ratified amount ($75) is enforceable. The $100 obligation was never reconfirmed.
Why it's wrong
The $100 was the original contract price. Ruth's post-majority promise modified the amount to $75. Only the ratified amount ($75) is enforceable. The $100 obligation was never reconfirmed.
14436_telescope-ruth-original · CONTRACTS · Choice DNothing, because Ruth was a minor at the time of the original transaction.
Why it's attractive
The choice says 'nothing' because Ruth was a minor. Infancy is a defense to the original contract, but it disappears once Ruth ratifies the obligation after reaching majority. 'nothing' is an overclaim.
Why it's wrong
The choice says 'nothing' because Ruth was a minor. Infancy is a defense to the original contract, but it disappears once Ruth ratifies the obligation after reaching majority. 'nothing' is an overclaim.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →