Case Scenario:
Stomach Pains
Scenario (based on a real Michigan case): A patient went to his doctor complaining of stomach pains. The doctor diagnosed the patient with a bleeding ulcer, recommending certain procedures and "promising to cure" it. However, ultimately the treatment(s) were unsuccessful. The patient sued the doctor for breach of contract. Was a contract created in this case-were all of the elements of a contract satisfied? Explain your answer. If there was a contract, what type of contract was it and why? Did the doctor breach a contract with the patient?
IMPORTANT NOTE: Some things to ponder as you respond to this question: We can all agree that it was stupid of the doctor to say what was said. No debate there, so don’t waste your time talking about that. The question for you, though, is whether we can hold him liable for damages for breach of contract. Now, let’s make a distinction between a contract to treat the patient (which obviously existed), and a contract to cure the patient, which is what the two sides are arguing about. Remember that there are two essential elements to contract formation: mutual assent + consideration. Was there an exchange of consideration to support an agreement to cure the patient? If so, what was it? There is a BIG difference between a mere promise and a contract. Was this just a promise, or did it meet all the requirements to be an enforceable contract? What could the doctor have done differently to have avoided being sued in this situation?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.