Each reply must reference at least 2 scholarly sources other than the course textbook, cited in current APA format (including both in-text citations and a reference list). You must also support each thread and reply with thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts) and Biblical worldview integration. For each reply, read the threads posted by your classmates and reply to 2 threads that presented a different conclusion than your thread. Note that comments such as "I like what you said," "that is a good comment," and "I disagree with your comment" do not constitute complete replies. Rather, state reasons that support your conclusions with additional and/or alternate research/ideas/thoughts. Must be 150 words

When someone breaks a promise or does not do their job well, they may have to face legal problems. This can happen in two ways: breach of contract or breach of duty. Breach of contract is when someone does not do what they agreed to do in a deal, such as paying money, delivering goods, or providing services. Breach of duty is when someone does not act carefully or skillfully in a situation where they have a responsibility to someone else, such as a trustee, a professional, or a caregiver. Both kinds of breaches can lead to legal actions, such as paying money, stopping the breach, or ending the deal or the relationship. Deals and responsibilities are based on a mutual trust and agreement between the parties. Deals and responsibilities create legal rights and obligations for the parties. Deals and responsibilities show what the parties wanted and expected when they made or created them. Deals and responsibilities can be changed or ended by mutual agreement or by law. Breaches of contract and duty can harm or hurt the injured party or other people. Breaches of contract and duty can damage the legal system and the market. Breaches of contract and duty can ruin the reputation and trustworthiness of the breaching party or the profession or industry they belong to.

Breaches of duty and contract can cause conflicts and lawsuits that can be expensive and time consuming. Breach of contract is usually based on a written or spoken deal while breach of duty can come from a law, a rule, or a relationship of trust or confidence. Breach of contract is usually decided by the terms and conditions of the deal, while breach of duty is usually decided by the level of care or skill expected in the relevant situation. Breach of contract can be fixed by paying money to the injured party to make up for what they lost, while breach of duty can be fixed by paying money to the injured party to cover what they spent or lost because of the breach. Breach of contract can sometimes be forgiven or explained by things such as impossibility hardship, change of circumstances, mistake, or pressure, while breach of duty can hardly be forgiven or explained by such things. "There are three types of arguments that can be made to escape the liability to pay damages for breach: denials, defenses, and damages- limiting rules," (Cartwright, B.).

Deals and responsibilities are ways of showing the relationship that God has with his people and his creation. Leonard may be able to sue Dr. Farrah-Fowler for breaking a clear and definite deal to not use blood or blood products in his treatment, and that the doctor broke that deal without his permission. However, it may be hard to prove that there was a valid deal in this case, because the forms that Leonard signed may not count as a deal. The forms may not meet these criteria as they are more like giving up the right to sue than agreeing to treatment. The forms that Leonard signed may not show the real deal between him and the doctor, as they say different things about Leonard's yes and no to blood transfusions. If Leonard verbally told Dr. Farrah-Fowler that he would think about a blood transfusion, if needed, after signing the forms, then the result may change based on the situation. But in this case, it is not clear whether Leonard's words changed the deal, then he may have let the doctor choose whether a blood transfusion was needed, and the doctor may have done what was right and good for Leonard. If Leonard's words ended the deal, then he may have said no to the treatment and the doctor may have done it without permission.

What both parties said and showed would be very important to figure out what Leonard's words meant and did. If Leonard was 17 years old when he signed the hospital forms, then the result may change based on his ability to make a deal. But none of these things seem to matter in this case, as blood transfusions are not must haves, Leonard was not independent, and there is no sign that he was allowed by law to say yes to medical treatment. So, Leonard may be able to cancel the forms and sue the doctor for hurting him, as he did not give a real yes to the blood transfusion. "Decision making under emergency conditions is a difficult task, the legitimacy of the social contract between medicine and society depends on medical experts' judicious exercise of public ethics principles," (Rangel, J.C.,).

Cartwright, B. (2022). Denials, defenses, and damages-limiting rules in breach of contract.Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 22(1), 21-45 https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2027700Links to an external site.

Rangel, J.C., Crath, R.D., & Renade, S. (2022). A breach in the social contract: Limited participation and limited evidence in Covid 19 responses.Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 28(6), 934-940. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13775Links to an external site..