Please be sure to explain your answers fully, using the law!

Annie says to Bob, $$I$$ll buy your car.$$ Nothing else happens. Do they have a contract? Why or why not?

Annie says to Bob, $$I$$ll buy your car for $$500.$ Bob says, $$Ok$.$ Do they have a contract? Why or why not?

Annie says to Bob, $$I$$ll buy your car for $$500.$ Bob says, $550!.$ Annie replies $$Ok$,$ $$550.$ Do they have a contract? Why or why not?

Bob says to Annie, $$You want my car? You can have it$.$Annie says $$Sure$!$ Do they have a contract? Why or why not?

What are the six types of contract that, by law, HAVE to be in writing?

In Week $1,$ I asked you to take a look at various Ethical frameworks. This week, let$$s try them out on the following scenario.

The laws of capacity prevent taking advantage of people in a diminished mental state, be it long$-$term $($like illness or handicap$)$ or short$-$term $($like duress or intoxication$).$ As such, contracts made with someone lacking capacity are voidable. This means that the injured party has the option to cancel the contract if they choose.

$1.$Under Kantianism, does this rule make sense? Explain using both of Kant$$s two categorical imperatives.

$2.$Under Utilitarianism, is it ethical to make these contracts voidable? Be sure to explain the pros and cons of the decision.

$3.$Under Social Contract, what social norms justify making contracts with those that lack capacity voidable?