Which of the following is true under the Restatement of Contracts, Section 16, regarding the claim of Charles that he should be able to avoid the contract involving Tessa because he was intoxicated?

A. Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicatedperson's condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction
B. Contracts of an intoxicated person are void if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person's condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.
C. Contracts of an intoxicated person are enforceable because a person should be bound by his or her actions.
D. Contracts of an intoxicated person are void only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person. E. Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person.