Siddle purchased a quantity of fireworks from Red Devil Fireworks Co. The sale was illegal, however, because Siddle did not have a license to make the purchase, which the seller knew because it had been so informed by the attorney general of the state. Siddle did not pay for the fireworks, and Red Devil sued him. He defended on the ground that the contract could not be enforced because it was illegal. Was the defense valid?

Yes it's valid

Explanation:

The seller of the fireworks was aware that Siddle did not have a license in which is required by the state of Washington to purchase the fireworks. The seller still gives him the firework’s. Illegal contracts are not enforceable.

The defense was valid

Explanation:

Red Devil Fireworks Co. is the seller of the fireworks and plaintiff in this suit.

Red Devil fireworks Co. intentionally violated the law by selling fireworks to Siddle who has no license to purchase it.

Siddle is the buyer of the fireworks and the defendant in this suit.

Siddle Unknowingly violated the law by purchasing fireworks without a licence, then he decided not to pay.

The case and validity of defense of the defendant

Siddle did not pay for the fireworks, and Red Devil Fireworks Co. sued him, Siddle defended on the ground that the contract could not be enforced because it was illegal.

Since the seller has been informed by the state attorney that is illegal to sell fireworks to the buyer without licence. Siddle has a valid argument because he unknowingly bought the fireworks and the Red devil fireworks Co. intentionally broke the law.

answer; is usually (less than) the socially optimal level of consumption;

a. money supply  

have a good day