Petunia is a 16-year-old who is traveling across the country on a road trip. One evening, she stops at the restaurant, Rhonda’s Roadhouse, for a tuna melt wrap. However, when the bill arrives, Petunia claims that she does not have to pay it because she is a minor. Which one of the following is true?- Petunia will not have to pay the bill because, as a child, she lacks the capacity to enter into a contract.- Petunia will not have to pay for the food because the restaurant should have known that she was a minor and thus should not have served her.- Petunia will have to pay the full amount of the bill because food is a necessary and minors still have to pay the full price for necessaries.- Petunia will have to pay for her food, but she likely will not have to pay the full price of the bill because minors are only responsible for paying for the reasonable value of necessaries.- Petunia will have to pay for her food because minors cannot get out of a contract based on their age.

The case involves a 16-year-old named Petunia, who visited Rhonda's Roadhouse, a restaurant, during her cross-country road trip. After dining at the restaurant and receiving the bill, Petunia refuses to pay, asserting that being a minor, she lacks the obligation to make the payment.The central issue in this scenario revolves around the legal rights and responsibilities of minors in contractual agreements, particularly regarding purchases considered as necessary. Necessaries refer to essential items required for a person's well-being or living standards.Petunia will not have to pay the bill because, as a child, she lacks the capacity to enter into a contract: This statement holds some truth regarding contracts with minors. Minors typically lack the legal capacity to enter into contracts. However, when it comes to needs. (essential items for the minor's well-being), the situation might differ.Petunia will not have to pay for the food because the restaurant should have known that she was a minor and thus should not have served her: This reason wouldn't apply because he thought the restaurant would need to know Petunia's age first. Most companies serve customers based on their face or face and will not be responsible for verifying the age of each customer before providing the service.Petunia will have to pay the full amount of the bill because food is a necessity, and minors still have to pay the full price for necessaries: This choice often reflects the law that children are responsible for paying for necessary things, that is, things that are important to their health. However, the determination of what is “important” can be subjective and cannot be applied to every product purchased by a minor.Petunia will have to pay for her food, but she likely will not have to pay the full price of the bill because minors are only responsible for paying for the reasonable value of necessaries: This choice aligns more closely with the legal principle regarding minors' responsibility for necessaries. Minors are typically responsible for paying the reasonable value of necessary rather than the full retail price.Petunia will have to pay for her food because minors cannot get out of a contract based on their age: This statement may not be fully applicable in the context of the requirements. While minors generally do not have contractual capacity, there are exceptions, especially when it comes to things that are necessary for their well-being.Considering the scenario involves Petunia purchasing food at a restaurant, an argument could be made that the food qualifies as a "necessary" for her well-being. As a result, option 4—Petunia will have to pay for her food, but she likely will not have to pay the full price of the bill because minors are only responsible for paying for the reasonable value of necessaries.

Answered: Petunia is a 16-year-old who is…