Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
1. Do you think Leonard has grounds to sue Dr. Farrah-Fowler for breach of express contract?
Breach:
Leonard does have grounds to sue Dr. Farrah-Fowler for breach of an express contract. From the onset, it should be noted that despite selecting her as his emergency contact, Leonard did not give Beverly (his mother) the legal power to act on his behalf. In essence, an emergency contact is that person who medical personnel ought to get in touch with incase of an emergency. However, in those instances whereby power (to act on behalf) has not been explicitly provided to the said emergency contact, then they possess no legal authority to act on behalf of another person. In the present scenario, Beverly and Leonard do not have a legal relationship. It should be noted that if Leonard had not expressly stated (in writing) that no blood or blood products should be used (even if it became necessary), his mother would have been deemed to have legal authority to make a decision on his behalf – as a close family member. Thus, in the present scenario, Beverly did not have the power to consent to giving Leonard two units of blood after Dr. Farrah-Fowler recommended a blood transfusion.
2. Would your decision be different if, after signing the consent forms, Leonard orally told Dr. Farrah-Fowler that he would consider a blood transfusion, if necessary?
No Breach:
My decision would be different. Leonard would not have grounds to sue Dr. Farrah-Fowler for breach of express contract. In this case, Leonard would have effectively modified the written contract orally (or verbally)....…no capacity to contract. As a minor, it follows that his parents would be making decisions on his behalf – especially in emergency care settings. In essence, the parent would in this case be acting as a surrogate decision maker for Leonard. It therefore follows that in the scenario presented, Beverly would be expected to make decisions that are in the best interests of Leonard. It is, however, important to note that there are indeed exceptions to this particular rule. An exception to the lack of capacity on the part of minors to contract would apply if Leonard would be an emancipated minor. In the words of Tepper (2014), “when a child, who is legally a minor, becomes and emancipated minor, they live separately from their parents and are effectively responsible for their actions” (149).…
Law of Contract Contract law As to concerned definition of law there are many definition among various schools of thought of law such that no particular definition is acceptable to them as universal definition of law, but nevertheless there is a common acceptable definition as to what the law is composed of and that it is a collection of rules and regulations governing human conduct prescribed by human beings for the obedience
Contract law lies at the center of our legal system and serves as the basis of our whole society. Our society relies on free exchange in the marketplace at every stage. Contract law is what makes this probable. Exchanges in the marketplace always rely on voluntary agreements between people. These voluntary agreements would never if there wasn't contract law. Contract law works to make these agreements enforceable, which typically means
However, it must be noted that the doctrine of consideration has changed and therefore seems to have fixed many of its most impractical elements, or at least that is what has been argued. One example of a change is the fact that in regards to consideration, the requirement for a benefit has moved from the requirement to show a legal benefit to simply a practical benefit. Another aspect to the
Contract Law The author of this response is asked to offer a response to a few major questions. First, the author is to explain the purpose and importance of Mitchell v. Finney Lock Seeds as it relates to contract law. The author is asked to relate Section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 to Schedule 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977. The author of this
Contracts Law: Disney World Jurassic Park Amusement Ride The first question at issue in this study has to do with the termination of an employee for poor sales performance who entered into a non-compete agreement with the company, specifically that of Disney. The employee, Simpson agreed that he would not directly or indirectly compete with Disney as an agent, employer, broker, or contractor for one year from the date of termination.
The presiding judge disagreed with them and "commented that if reverse engineering was possible, then they should reverse engineer the alleged infringement to obtain evidence of infringement." 6. Analogies The situation assumed in the first section of the paper, that of a software product which could or could not be reverse engineered by a customer, researcher or journalist, can be considered through the lens of other situations as well. For starters,