Person C ordered a lens with the help of an optometrist. The cost of lenses was $225. Person C is considered as minor already paid $100 and decided to pay balance amount $125 at future date. The optometrist ordered the lenses after that person C withdraw her order and not paid the balanced amount. The optometrist filed a sue against person C for the value of lenses. To discuss: Whether optometrist able to recuperate the money from person C.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 14, Problem 16CP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person C ordered a lens with the help of an optometrist. The cost of lenses was $225. Person C is considered as minor already paid $100 and decided to pay balance amount $125 at future date. The optometrist ordered the lenses after that person C withdraw her order and not paid the balanced amount. The optometrist filed a sue against person C for the value of lenses.

To discuss: Whether optometrist able to recuperate the money from person C.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Carol White ordered a $225 pair of contact lenses through an optometrist. White, an emancipated minor, paid $100 by check and agreed to pay the remaining $125 at a later time. The doctor ordered the lenses, incurring a debt of $110. After the lenses were ordered, White called to cancel her order and stopped payment on the $100 check. The lenses could be used by no one but White. The doctor sued White for the value of the lenses. Will the doctor be able to recover the money from White? Explain.

Peters paid Davis $1000 for carpeting which was installed in Peter's home on March 1, 1974. Peters immediately noticed a defect in the carpets and notified Davis. Davis's employees attempted several times to fix the carpets but were unsuccessful. On May 1, Peter wrote Davis and rejected the carpet demanding a full refund of the purchase price. Davis failed to remove the carpet. What will be the result?

Deborah McCullough bought a new car from Bill Swad Chrysler, Inc. The car was protected by both a limited warranty and an extended warranty. McCullough immediately encountered problems with the automobile’s brakes, transmission, and air conditioning and discovered a number of cosmetic defects as well. She returned the car to Swad for repairs, but Swad did not fix the brakes properly or perform any of the cosmetic work. Moreover, new problems appeared with respect to the car’s steering mechanism. McCullough returned the car twice more for repairs, but on each occasion, old problems persisted and new ones emerged. After the engine abruptly shut off on a short trip away from home and the brakes again failed on a more extensive excursion, McCullough presented Swad with a list of thirty-two of the car’s defects and demanded their correction. When Swad failed to remedy more than a few of the problems, McCullough wrote a letter to Swad calling for rescission of the purchase agreement and a…