Who can avoid a contract but must pay full restitution as a condition of disaffirmance?

The correct choice indicates that an intoxicated person can disaffirm a contract but must provide full restitution to the other party as a condition of doing so. This principle is rooted in contract law, which allows individuals who are unable to understand the nature and consequences of a transaction—due to intoxication or other factors—to disaffirm their contracts.

In the case of an intoxicated person, the law recognizes that their ability to make informed decisions is impaired. However, if they choose to disaffirm a contract, they are typically required to return any benefits received or pay for the value of those benefits to ensure fairness for both parties. This requirement for restitution helps balance the equitable interests involved in contract disputes, recognizing the intoxicated person’s incapacity while also considering the rights of the other party.

Other groups, such as minors, legally insane individuals, or very young children, have specific legal protections and may not face the same restitution obligations in all contexts. For example, minors can often disaffirm contracts without having to provide restitution, especially when the items involved are considered necessities. However, for non-necessary items or under certain circumstances, a minor may still have to make restitution.

This nuanced understanding of capacity and restitution is crucial in contract law, and it highlights