Question

akins was 17 year old, married and had a full-time job with which he was able to support himself, his wife and their 2 small kids. A doctor sued him to recover the cost of the medical care and surgery proided to him. Eakins did not have medical isnurance. In this situation, the Court would:

a. Declare the contract invalid since Eakins is a mjor and protected as the result of the status.

b. Declare the contarct voilable at the option of Eakins and let him decide whether he wanted to pay the doctor or not under some moral obliagtion.

c. Declare the contract valid because Easkins circumstances made him emancipated and thus his minority status was no longer protected him as the law does when it comes to contract entered into by a minor. Thus, he would have to pay the doctor for the services rendered.

d. Eakins is a minor despite his circumstances because he is not fiancially/economically independent and since what was provided- medical care- is a necessary of life, this is an exception to the rule that minors are protected from contract liability and he would have to pay the reasonable value for the medical care provide to him

Answer 1

Solution

Given that Eakins was 17 years of age.So,since he is a minor,the contract is not enforceable as the according to the law,persons below the age of 18 years (i.e.,minors) are considered to be not having the capacity to take decisions.If they get into the contract under 18 years of age,they have the option of cancelling the contract after they attain the age of 18 years.

So,option b is correct i.e.,Declare the contarct voidable at the option of Eakins and let him decide whether he wanted to pay the doctor or not under some moral obligation.

Option a i.e., Declare the contract invalid since Eakins is a major and protected as the result of the status i.e., is incorrect as Eakins ia minor and not a major.

Option c and Option d are also wrong.

Please give a "Thumbsup" rating for this solution.