Which of the following best describes a contract formed through "fraud"?

A contract formed through fraud involves deception that leads one party to enter into the agreement under false pretenses. In Texas contract law, if one party was induced to enter into a contract by fraudulent misrepresentation made by the other party, that contract may be rendered voidable. This means that the deceived party has the option to affirm or void the contract upon discovering the fraud.

The key aspect here is the element of deception, which undermines the true consent needed for legally binding agreements. If one party has been tricked or misled, their agreement is not truly voluntary. Consequently, the injured party can seek to void the contract to prevent unjust enrichment of the fraudulent party.

In contrast, the other options do not capture the essence of a fraudulent contract. For instance, stating that a contract is enforceable as long as it is written does not take into account the critical factor of consent that is vitiated by fraud. Similarly, suggesting that a contract is valid as long as both parties consent overlooks the fact that genuine consent must be based on accurate representations. Finally, mentioning regret over terms does not address the legal implications of fraud, which hinge on deception rather than mere dissatisfaction with the agreement.