Question 2

Laura is seventeen and rather wealthy. She needs a brain surgery because she is usually talking more rubbish than good, due a diagnosed neural defect in her frontal lobe. She signs a contract with a doctor for surgery, who knows of her condition. To make sure that the contract would be valid, they let her uncle sign the contract as witness, in order to assess that Laura was clear in the mind when she signed the contract. The contract provides for USD 1.000 per hour surgery, which is an adequate price for such a complicated treatment. The surgery is successful and after several weeks of recovery, Laura is able to think and speak normally. However, she is celebrating her 18^th birthday in hospital.

Several weeks after her release from the clinic, she gets an invoice for USD 9.000. Laura is outraged and phones the clinic to check the duration of the surgery. The clinic tells her that the surgery took only seven hours. Laura now sends a check to the doctor on USD 7.000 and writes on it "Payment in full for the brain surgery if accepted". The doctor is too busy to notice and deposits the check in his house bank.

Several months afterwards, when preparing his tax declaration, he comes across the bank account showing the sum paid with the check. He immediately phones Laura to claim the outstanding USD 2.000. Laura refuses to pay, since she already paid in full and because she had been a minor anyway as she had signed the contract, so the doctor should be lucky to get anything. If he would claim more money, she would claim back her money in return.

Also, she says, she has gained information, from a nurse friend working at the same hospital, that the doctor was overdue with the extension of his medical license. This is correct, however, at the time of the surgery, the medical license had been in full force, it expanded shortly afterwards. The doctor answers that this does not pose any problems and that since, in the meanwhile, he has already filed for extension with the competent doctors' representative body, this was a mere formality.

Question 2.1:

Was there a valid contract formed? Explain.

Question 2.2:

By paying with the check as described, has Laura been discharged of her obligations? In other words, is the doctor right in claiming USD 2.000 more?

Question 2.3:

Is it a good defense which Laura puts up, when claiming that she had been a minor when the contract was signed? Why not?

Question 2.4:

Which defense of Laura would be good in any case?

Question 2.5:

Does the fact that her uncle signed the initial contract as a witness change anything?