Select the best answer choice.

For her sweet$-$sixteenth birthday, Mindy Minor went to a used car dealer with her aunt and grandmother. Mindy Minor purchased a used car in $"$as is$"$ condition and was listed as the purchaser of the car. The purchase agreements neither include the aunt nor grandmother.

Mindy Minor discovers later that the drive shaft was bent and she returned the car to the dealer, demanding a refund for the $$2,000$ purchase price. Dealer refused to give Mindy a refund because her aunt and grandmother gave financial assistance to make the purchase and made verbal assurances. They also gave Mindy the money to make the purchase.

Is the contract voidable by Mindy Minor so that she can get a refund of the purchase price?

The aunt's and grandmother's participation in the transaction does not modify the rule that a contract entered in by Mindy Minor is voidable because of her infancy, thus she is entitled to a refund.

There should not be a refund and the contract is not voidable since the presence of the grandmother and aunt constitutes an implied warranty of title.

The adult aunt and grandmother actually own the car because they are real parties in interest, because they paid for the car, and the dealer must return the money to them based on restitution.

Mindy Minor is entitled to a refund because the dealer committed fraud in the inducement by not telling Mindy about the defective drive shaft.