At age 16, Smith was a promising young hockey player. He was drafted by the Fredericton Firebirds to play for their club, a junior team one step below the professional league. One year into the contract, the Firebirds terminated the contract and required all of their players to sign new four-year contracts. Smith was to receive $250 weekly, along with room and board and the flexibility to complete his high school studies. In return, Smith agreed to play only for Fredericton and gave them the right to trade him to any other team or terminate the contract at any time. On his 18^th birthday, Smith visited the general manager of the Firebirds, and repudiated his contract. Smith had received offers from the professional league, which promised him far greater instruction with superior coaching, as well as $200,000 per season. Smith felt that an early jump on a professional career was vital to him, considering the early retirement age of most hockey players. The general manager was upset with Smith, and vowed to bring a suit against him if he signed with the professional league to set an example for the other players. Smith signed the contract with the professional team, and the general manager brought suit against him.

Which of the following is correct?

	The contract with Fredericton is binding because all elements of contract law were present
	He is a minor and can repudiate either contract
	The contract with Fredericton is not binding because there was no intention
	The contract with Fredericton is binding because it is a Beneficial Employment Contract
	A deal is a deal and he cannot ignore his contract with Fredericton