Thank you for your question.
A "void" contract is a contract that is impossible to be deemed valid under law. For example a contract to purchase 4 pounds of cocaine is void because the substance in question is illegal and against the law. Void contracts are frowned upon by the law and are not able to be lawfully enforced against either party. An another example of a "void" contract is if the subject matter is impossible to perform. For example if someone enters into a contract to purchase coffee from a nation that has an internal embargo on exporting coffee, while this contract is legal under local law, it is impossible to perform since the subject matter cannot be obtained. Such contracts are not really contracts under the law as never existed as such.
A "voidable" contract, on the other hand, is generally an imperfect contract where one party may have grounds to terminate or choose to accept the contract as-is. A good example may be a contract entered into with a minor, where the minor at his choosing may cancel the contract as he or she is protected from entering into many types of agreements. This is a "voidable" contract from the perspective of the minor who can choose to uphold or choose to cancel the contract. Voidable contracts by definition are still valid as agreements but they generally only bind one of the parties, not the other, and that gives the unbound party more flexibility in whether or not to perform the agreement.
A offers to sell B 1000 boxes of nails, but forgets to state the price. All other material terms are present, however. B accepts, but later wants to back out of the deal, arguing that the offer was indefinite. Is there a contract here? Why or why not? Assume that at the time of the deal the parties intended to make a contract. Assume also that there was an established market price for the nails in question here. 300 words max
This is a valid contract. The reason this is a valid contract is while under traditional laws of contract all conditions must be expressly stated, under the more recent trend that started in the 20th century the courts are far more lenient toward missing terms, and if such terms can be reasonably extrapolated or found, the courts will enter them into the agreement. In this instance parties both intended to make a contract meaning the courts will work toward maintaining the terms rather than breaking them down. Furthermore, if there is a valid market price for this fungible product, the courts will have little problem in placing that market value within the agreement so as to make the contract valid. There is greater chance that the contract will be upheld if both are "vendors
" or are commercial contractors, or have a history with one another than if they are individuals who aren't contractors.