There is an important distinction between "void"and "voidable" contracts. Confusion sometimes arises from the failure to understand the difference. A contract is void when the law declares it to be so absolutely - there is no contract whatever and no change in the legal position of the parties; it cannot be ratified. A voidable contract, on the other hand, binds one party but not the other; it is valid until it is avoided by the party entitled to avoid it (refuse to do his part). Until thus disaffirmed it is binding. It may be ratified. Thus, A agrees to sell a $5,000 automobile to B, a minor (not yet 21 years of age). A is bound to furnish the automobile and cannot plead that B was not of age; B may refuse to take the automobile, in which case A is helpless; B may ratify after becoming of age - that is, agree to fulfill his part of the contract he had entered into when a minor. As we shall see later, a minor is bound to pay for necessaries, but even then only a reasonable price. For instance, B, a minor, agrees to purchase a $30 suit from A, who furnishes the suit. B then tries to avoid paying for it, alleging that when he entered into the contract he was a minor and therefore could not be bound on the contract. He will be compelled to pay A for the suit, but only what it is worth - the reasonable value - regardless of the fact that he had agreed to pay $30.