Marissa, who is 1 week away from her 18^th birthday, needs a car before she starts her new job. She learns that her high-school principal is willing to sell his car for a reasonable price. Marissa and Victor talk about the car in Victor's office, and Victor tells her that the engine on the car is in good shape and that he does not know of any problems with the car. Marissa agrees to pay Victor $1,000 for the car "as is", after Victor convinces her that is a fair price. Marissa and Victor sign a short contract memorializing the agreement. Both parties agree that Victor will deliver the car the next day, Saturday, by 10:00 a.m., so Marissa can use it to get to her new job by noon. After his meeting with Marissa, Victor learns that the car is being recalled by the manufacturer for a faulty engine.

The next day, Victor delivers the car to Marissa. Before he hands the car over, Victor tells Marissa he will sell the car only if she pays him an additional $300 since he had the car detailed and made her a second set of keys. Marissa, who is worried about getting to her new job on time, agrees to pay the extra money, but tells Victor she cannot do so now. Victor tells her she must deliver the extra $300 to him within two weeks. Marissa then gives Victor $1,000, and Victor leaves without telling Marissa anything about the recall. Marissa never gives Victor the additional $300.

Three months later, Marissa is very angry at Victor. She has done some research and determines the car is worth only $500. More importantly, she is experiencing problems with the car and finds out that Victor had been notified about the engine issues. She asks Victor for a refund, but he refuses to give her one.

QUESTION: If it can be shown that the value of the vehicle is, in fact, only $500, what effect does the lower value in and of itself (on its own) have on the enforceability of the contract?