Answer :
Final answer:
Rail, upon hitting the age of majority, still had a reasonable period to disaffirm his contract with Elco. Consequently, Elco's refusal to refund Rail might be seen as incorrect depending on jurisdiction and facts like if the purchase was considered 'necessary' or if Rail misrepresented his age when making the purchase.
Explanation:
In the case of Rail and Elco, the primary issue revolves around the concept of a contract and the power to disaffirm a contract as a minor. A minor can typically disaffirm a contract at any time during minority, or for a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority. However, once a reasonable period has passed after the minor reaches the age of majority, they might lose this right depending on the specifics of the law in their state.
In Rail's case, he sought to disaffirm the contract with Elco two days after reaching the age of majority. This is likely to be considered a 'reasonable period' after reaching majority, hence Rail theoretically retains the right to disaffirm the contract.
Consequentially, Elco's refusal to refund Rail could be deemed incorrect depending on jurisdiction. Despite this, without more specific information about the law in their particular state or additional relevant facts such as if the computer was considered 'necessary' under the terms of state legislation or if Rail misrepresented his age, it is hard to definitively conclude.
Learn more about Disaffirm a contract here:
https://brainly.com/question/5896684
#SPJ12
he would no longer be protected by the Infancy Doctrine
