Most contracts never see a courtroom, and they could easily be verbal unless there is a particular reason for the contract to be in writing. But when something goes wrong, a written contract protects both parties. If one party to a valid contract believes the other party has broken the contract, the party harmed can bring a lawsuit against the party who it believes has breached the contract (Murray, 2016). The legal process determines whether the contract was broken or if there are events that may have negated the breach. Courts only hear contract disputes, when the contract is valid. The difference between a Contract and an Agreement is most people use the terms "contract" and "agreement", they are not the same. A contract is an agreement between parties creating obligations that are enforceable (Murray, 2016). An agreement is a mutual understanding between parties about their relative rights and responsibilities. All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts. There …show more content…
In some jurisdictions, statutes have made certain promises enforceable without consideration, e.g., promises to pay debts barred by the statute of limitations. To be enforceable, most contracts must be in writing, to comply with the Statute of Frauds (n.d., 2016). Since a contract is an agreement, it may be made only by parties with the capacity to reach an understanding. Therefore, individuals suffering from severe mental illness are unable to make binding contracts. Their contracts do not bind minors, but they are responsible for the value of goods received in contracts made for the necessities of life. Otherwise, a minor may denounce his contracts at any time and on attaining majority may elect whether to affirm or repudiate them (n.d.,
Forcing someone to take medication or be hospitalized against their will seems contrary to an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment, however, the issue becomes complicated when it involves individuals suffering from a mental illness. What should be done when a person has lost their grasp on reality, or if they are at a risk of harming themselves or others? Would that justify denying individuals the right to refuse treatment and issuing involuntary treatment? Numerous books and articles have been written which debates this issue and presents the recommendations of assorted experts.
Parker, Laura. "The Right to Be Mentally Ill: Families Lobby to Force Care." USA TODAY. Feb. 12 2001: 1A+. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
As time goes on, the law has put more emphasis on facility just like Bridgewater State Hospital in which many of the actions of the facility workers can face legal consequences such as facing prison time, fines, lawsuits, and etc. Society has a better understanding of why certain people act the way that they do and being more knowledgeable about psychology and mental diseases allows us to have a different approach when dealing with these topics or these individuals. In today’s era, there are many normal individuals who are willing to stand up for those who do not have a voice of their own. I believe that this change in one’s ability to stand up for another individual or group of individuals is what brought about change to the medical environment of those who are mentally
"A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. In other words, when promises have the status of contract, the contracting party harmed by a breach of the contract is entitled to obtain legal remedies against the breaching party" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 320)
Roberts, L. (2003). Mental Illness and Informed Consent: Seeking and Empirically Derived Understanding of Voluntarism. Medscape. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/460483
“Insurance companies often cover mental illness in a more limited fashion than physical illness” (Christensen). The lack of mental health care provided for the mentally ill has been a growing issue in the US during the previous years, and there has been some progress. For example, there has been the Mental Health Care and Parity Law of 2008 that was enacted so that the insurers would cover mental illness just as they would cover other illnesses. In addition, the Affordable Care Act was enacted to enforce that the insurers abide by the rules. Unfortunately, that hasn’t helped much, hence: the sneaky behavior of insurance companies. This sneaky behavior seems to be unnoticed by the government the majority of the time unless the patient or his family decides to file a lawsuit. Until then, insurance companies have been constantly bending rules and finding loopholes to not pay insurance for mental illness.
The documentary, Shadow Voices: Finding hope in Mental Illness, was a great introduction to some of the stigmas and issues that patients with a mental illness and their families face. What impacted me the most was learning about the financial burden that mental illness places on families as well as the unfair judgement from the community that their family faces. The documentary addressed the financial burden that patients with mental illness incur as a result of health insurance companies lack of recognizing mental illness as true disease. Prior to watching the documentary I was unaware of the unending cycle that patients may fall into. During the film, an individual with a mental illness, said she was forced to quit her job so that she could receive adequate insurance coverage to cover her medical bills, but because of her unemployment she wasn’t able to cover her other living expenses.
According to Szasz (2005), “In principle, the mental patient is considered competent (until proven [otherwise]). In practice, the client is regularly treated as if he were incompetent and the psychiatrist who asserts that he needs treatment is treated as if he were the patient’s guardian” (p.78). During the 1940’s patients who were mentally ill were considered “legally incompetent” when committed into a mental health facility. Relatives of the patients could release them by providing care in their homes for the client. Unfortunately, Szasz (2005) claims, that “the treatment of mental diseases is no more successful today than it was in the past” (p.78).
Contractual agreement has always been viewed in terms of offer and acceptance. The universal principle to contract law has always been parties may get into an agreement in whichever way they deem fit and they are subject to certain terms as they choose. As far as legal requirements vital to their formation are binding contracts may be formed. Moreover a binding agreement may be manifested in terms of writing or in verbal form.
One of the last remaining strongholds of classical contract law is the notion that contracts require offer and acceptance therefore, in order for a contract to become binding, offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations must exist. However contracts are formed in different ways for each different circumstance. (Shawn Bayern, Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept, 103 Cal. L. Rev. 67, 102 (2015)
It is possible for a mentally ill person to make a bad choice that results in a crime. We have to consider that person’s mental illness when determining their guilt. If said mental illness is determined to have controlled in full or in part, the criminal should be deemed less culpable, so much so that the death penalty would be off the table. They were not in a clear mental state when they committed the crime and therefore couldn’t choose otherwise.
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
A contract is an agreement which has its specified terms and conditions between two or more parties in which there is a promise to do something in return for a benefit.
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,
A contract is generally considered to be an exchange of promises or an agreement between parties which in due course legally binds the parties; this can be enforced by the English Law. A contract is always, referred to the basic foundations of Contract Law, which refers to promises being kept amongst two parties. It is clear that all people make contracts nowadays and do not even consider for a moment that they are forming contracts; these can be formal or informal, oral or written.