Breach or no Breach Contract Law

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). It should, however, be noted that in some instances, written contracts can have a clause requiring that any modification be done in writing. This, according to Friedman (2011) is often referred to as a NOM clause, i.e. No Oral Modification clause. In the words of Friedman (2011), “oral modification is unenforceable if the contract specifies that modifications must be in writing” (78). However, it is important to note that in the present scenario, we have not been told whether or not the contract in question had a NOM clause. Therefore, we must assume that it did not have the said NOM clause.
3. Would your decision, based only on the written forms, be different if Leonard was 17 years old when he signed the hospital forms?
No Breach:
Yes, my decision would be different. This is because at 17 years old, Leonard would in this case be a minor. Minors have 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).
References
Friedman, L.M. (2011). Contract Law in America: A Social and Economic Case Study. New Orleans: Quid Pro Books.
Tepper, P. (2014). The Law of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code (3rd ed). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.