Read the case below and give me your own opinion if you agree or disagree with the court rulling.

(There is no limit word count, just not too short.)

Case : Carla Wonjung Lee, DDS, Ltd. v. Robles

Fact: The plaintiff of the case is dental doctor Clara Wonjung Lee, who opened the case

against doctor Rosalina Robles for violating their purchase agreement, which now Dr. Robles

appeals to. Dr. Lee had heard through media such as the Chicago Magazine that Dr. Lee had

worked with another coworker named Dr. Kimmel, in the same dental premises, knowing that

that coworker provided services for underage prostitutes under pimps back in 2006. Both

plaintiff and defendant had agreed under separate leasing under this premises, with the purchase

price of 267,000 and part of that money had gone to corporate. After knowing about this past

event, Dr. Lee attempted to negotiate with Dr. Robles about the recession of the purchase

agreement, but they could not negotiate. The plaintiff Dr. Lee opened the case and for breach of

contract, common law fraud, consumer fraud, tortious interference with business, and rescission

of contract based on fraudulent inducement in 2007. In 2010, Robles opened a forcible detainer

action against Lee for failure of paying rent owed. All counts were rejected for review, except for

the count of the rescission claim in 2011. The court found more evidence in favor of Dr. Lee and

found that Dr. Robles testimony was "incredible" and that she in fact did know about Dr.

Kimmels practices. Under section 6 of the purchase agreement, Dr. Robel was responsible of

letting Dr. Lee know of the illegal practices before the agreement had been signed. The court had

ordered for $260,000 dollars to be returned to the plaintiff for both sides to return to the

circumstances they were once in, minus the rent the plaintiff had owed which was around

$90,000. Now in the appeal, Dr. Robels claims that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff should

be reversed on the grounds that the trial court did not sufficiently look over the defendant's

evidence, and that under the clean hands doctrine, the plaintiff was never in the right because of

their failure of paying the rent. Also, the defendant claims that the money judgement that was

ordered was too much since the plaintiff did not actually suffer any monetary loss.

Decision : The courts previous decision was upheld, the only change to the original court

decision was a change made to the court's money judgement. A scrivener had made an error in

the previous court decision to the monetary amount, and now the defendant had to pay $85,800.

Reason : The reason of rejecting the defendants appeal was because the claim of clean hands

was not explicitly stated during the original court trial and that the appellant did not pinpoint

where this issue was discussed in the case, therefore that claim was waived. The claim of

insufficient analysis was rejected because, the appellate court affirms the trial courts in saying

that the Defendents did in fact commit fraud by withholding information. Because of this, the

monetary judgment does not change, and the monetary judgment was properly decided with the

final charges of $85,000.