If Geraldo backed out of a property sale contract without a valid reason and the judge ruled in favor of Sue, how is the contract described?

The contract is described as enforceable because it is a valid agreement between the parties that includes all essential elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, and the parties' legal capacity to contract. When Geraldo backed out without a valid reason, it indicates a breach of contract on his part. Since the judge ruled in favor of Sue, this reinforces the validity of the contract, demonstrating that it remains legally binding and can be upheld in court.

In the context of contracts, a non-enforceable contract lacks legal effect and cannot be enforced in a court of law. A void contract is one that was never valid from the start due to reasons such as illegality or lack of capacity. A voidable contract, on the other hand, is a valid contract that one party may choose to affirm or reject based on certain circumstances, such as misrepresentation or undue influence, which does not apply here since Geraldo's withdrawal was without valid grounds. Thus, the correct descriptor for the situation is that the contract is enforceable.