A voidable contract can be canceled by one party due to fraudulent misrepresentation, which requires a false statement of fact, made knowingly or recklessly, with intent to induce reliance, and actual reliance causing harm. In Option A, the vendor’s claim that the laptop is new, despite knowing it is refurbished, is a deliberate false statement, inducing the student’s purchase, making the contract voidable due to fraud. Option B involves a mistake, not fraudulent misrepresentation, as there’s no intent to deceive. Option C is a negotiation issue, not misrepresentation, as the offer was clear. Option D involves a minor defect, not a false statement of fact, and lacks fraudulent intent. This question tests nuanced understanding of contract law, a key area in the Business Law category, challenging candidates to distinguish between types of misrepresentation and contract enforceability, reflecting the Praxis 5101 exam’s depth.