Broker K arrives to present an offer to Mrs. G, an invalid, and finds her son and his wife also present. Both individuals persis
tently urge Mrs. G to accept the offer on her home, though it is much lower than the price she was asking. If Mrs. G signs the offer, she may later claim:A. that Broker K should not have brought her a low offerB. that she was under undo duress from her son and daughter-in-law and that the agreement is voidableC. that Broker K defrauded her by allowing her son and daughter-in-law to see the agreementD. that her son and his wife have usurped her consumer protection rights
Answer is Option B: that she was under undo duress from her son and daughter-in-law and that the agreement is voidable.
Explanation:
When the broker came to offer Mrs. G, the price he offered was quite less than what she was asking for. Still his son and his wife urged her to sign the offer. So, later she can claim that she was under a lot of threat and violence from her son and daughter-in-law to sign the offer and it would make the agreement voidable.
She cannot claim about Broker's offering less price, as per Option A. Neither she can say that Broker defrauded them, as per Option C. Option D is also incorrect as it says that her consumer rights were taken illegally by her son and his wife.
This change in price means that there is a shortage of lettuce and the price of tacos will increase. That if tacos are made with lettuce and everything else remains constant (ceteris paribus).
