$38.$ The four $(4)$ main elements to a contract are: $(1)$ agreement; $(2)$ capacity to contract; $(3)$ consideration; and $(4)$ lawful purpose. These elements are called "essential" elements because they belong together and as long as there are a majority of the elements, then common law contract law provides that there is still a valid enforceable contract. T F

$39.$ A revocation of an offer sent FedEx on April $1,2022$ and delivered to the offeree's residence or place of business on April $3,2022.$ The offeree has not yet accepted the offer. The revocation of the offer becomes effective on April $1,2017$ in that in the majority of states, a revocation becomes effective when the offeror sends it to the offeree or the offeree's agent. T F

$40.$ Robert says to his son, $"$In consideration of the fact that you are not as wealthy as your brothers, I will pay you $$5,000\mathrm{.}00$ by Friday of next week." There consideration in this transaction especially since Robert used the word "consideration" is his statement and Robert's promise is enforceable as a "bargained$-$for$-$exchange" and since it is between a father and son, contract law does not look for the son to have to do anything to receive the $$5,000\mathrm{.}00$ promised and does not need to give Robert something of legal value in return for the promise of $$5,000\mathrm{.}00.$ T F

$41.$ Carol contracts orally to sell her vacant Seaside real property to Axel for $$25,000\mathrm{.}00.$ Later, Carol decides not to sell the property. There is not a valid contract that Axel can enforce in court and obtain the property upon paying for it because this is one of the transactions that the Statute of Frauds required to be in writing in order to be enforced in a court of law. T F

$42.$a$.$ Bonna Petite, a clever and advanced $17$ year old with an appetite for fancy food. She desired to eat at a fancy French Restaurant called "Tres Cher" the most elegant and fancy restaurant in town. She was not under or experiencing any life circumstances which would consider the lunch a "necessary of life" for Ms$.$ Petite. One day, she dressed up and groomed herself to look like a $25$ year old businesswoman. She was seated at the restaurant and ordered a very expensive lunch. At the end of the meal, she summoned the waiter over and said: "This has been an excellent lunch and it is therefore with great sadness that I must inform you that I am a minor. I must disaffirm my contract to purchase this lunch." She showed him a form of identification clearly showing she was only $17.$ The age of majority in her State is $18.$ The State contract law does not make any exceptions if a minor misrepresents herself as being older than a minor. Bonna's disaffirmance of the implied contract to pay for the lunch she ate is valid because minor may disaffirm$/$disapprove a contract at any time before turning the age of majority $(18)$ or within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority. T F