Multiple Choice
In the case of C.M.D. v. Facebook, Facebook allowed a minor to create a Facebook account, but the minor had to accept Facebook's terms, which included using the minor's name and likeness in advertisements. The minor's parents sued Facebook, claiming the terms of the agreement were not enforceable against a minor, and also claiming that the minor disaffirmed the agreement with Facebook. How did the court rule?
A) There never was a contract because the minor lacked capacity.
B) The contract was illegal and therefore unenforceable.
C) As long as the parents knew their child had a Facebook account and allowed it, they impliedly accepted the terms on behalf of the minor.
D) Since the minor kept using Facebook he never disaffirmed it.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q14: Tom is late for a class and
Q15: If a person to an agreement lacks
Q16: Determining if an adult is lucid, and
Q17: The requirement that both the subject matter
Q18: Explain the process of disaffirmance of a
Q20: Dottie, 15 years old, purchases a pint
Q21: Senator Beach agrees with his donors that
Q22: Once a minor reaches majority, if that
Q23: Intoxication will always negate capacity to contract.
Q24: Contracts may be determined illegal not only