Tom tries to sell his classic car to Victoria for $12,000. Tom tells Victoria, "I paid $12,000 for the car in 1978 and it's worth twice that today." Tom really paid $8,000 for the car in 1978. If Victoria buys the car, basing her decision on Tom's statement, which of the following correctly states the situation?

a. Tom's statements amount to puffing only.
b. Tom's statements provide grounds to set the contract aside.
c. Tom's statements are actionable only if intentional.
d. Tom's statements amount to fraud in the execution.

B) Tom's statements provide grounds to set the contract aside.

Explanation:

When we are talking about setting a contract aside, it means that the contract is voidable. A voidable contract is valid until one of the parts decides to void it. In this case, if Victoria decides to purchase Tom's car and later discovers that he lied about the price, she can void the contract and return the car to get her money back.

What Tom is doing is basically lying about the material facts of the product that they are bargaining and it represents a valid reason for voiding the contract.

idk

explanation:

idk

correct, but each time you dont pay the price of the penalty can increase.