**Scenario:**Oliver enters into a written contract with Jinali for the purchase of organic produce. Oliver later learns that none of the produce is organic and that Jinali had used cheap, dangerous pesticides on the produce. How should the contract be characterized?**Options:**- The contract is voidable.- The contract is unenforceable.- The contract is valid.- The contract violates the statute of frauds.- The contract is void.

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties that creates obligations enforceable by law. It consists of an offer, acceptance, consideration (something of value exchanged between the parties), legal capacity of the parties involved, legal purpose, and mutual assent.Contracts can be oral or in writing, although certain types of contracts must be in writing to be enforceable, as mandated by the statute of fraud in many jurisdictions.The contract is unenforceable: A circumstance where the law forbids the enforcement of the contract is sometimes referred to as an unenforceable contract. For example, a contract may be declared unenforceable if it contravenes public policy or if it is missing some crucial components mandated by law. In this case, the fact that the food is not organic as promised raises concerns, but it does not automatically mean that the entire contract is void. Although it might be voidable for fraud or other violations, the produce clause alone does not make it invalid.The contract is valid: A contract that satisfies all the prerequisites for being enforceable by law is considered legitimate. An offer, acceptance, consideration, ability, legality, and the desire to establish legal connections are typically included in this list. However, Jinali misrepresented the organic produce in the circumstances that were stated, which could have an impact on the contract's legitimacy. The legitimacy of the contract may be impacted if a key clause—like the produce's organic status—is misrepresented.The contract violates the statute of frauds: A legal principle known as the statute of fraud states that some contracts must be in writing in order to be enforceable. Contracts for the sale of real estate, agreements to settle another party's debt, contracts that cannot be completed within a year, and contracts for the sale of products above a specific amount are all covered by this Act. Still, the scenario outlined has nothing to do with breaking the statute of fraud. Rather, it entails a contract violation or misrepresentation about the product's quality.The situation described might lead to the contract being characterized as "voidable."A voidable contract is one that appears to be valid and enforceable initially but contains a flaw or defect that allows one party to choose whether to enforce or void the contract. In this case, the misrepresentation by Jinali about the produce being organic, which later turned out to be false, could be grounds for Oliver to void the contract.The use of cheap, dangerous pesticides instead of organic methods violates the implied terms of the contract, which was based on the understanding that the produce would be organic. This misrepresentation or breach of contract gives Oliver the right to void the agreement if he chooses to do so.

Answered: Oliver enters into a written contract…