Which statement about disaffirmance is accurate?

Disaffirmance refers to the ability of a party to a contract to reject or negate the agreement due to certain conditions, such as minority status or mental incompetence. One fundamental principle of disaffirmance is that when a party chooses to disaffirm a contract, they typically must return any consideration they received to the extent possible. This requirement is known as "return of consideration," which seeks to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions whenever feasible.

Thus, the correct statement emphasizes that to effectively disaffirm a contract, the individual asserting this right must return or offer to return what was received under the contract. This principle ensures fairness, as it prevents one party from benefiting while unilaterally voiding their obligations.

In comparison, the other statements do not accurately reflect the nature of disaffirmance. For instance, disaffirmance does not necessitate court approval, as individuals can often act independently to disaffirm contracts they are entitled to void. Additionally, it is not restricted to being invoked solely by one party; both parties may have the ability to disaffirm based on circumstances surrounding their contract. Lastly, while fraud can lead to disaffirmance, it is not the exclusive condition under which disaffirmance may be invoked, as there are other