BUS311_chapter_05

Disaffirmance theabilityofaminor

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: man constituted a full settlement between them. Sherman filed a lawsuit against Burton to collect the remaining $310 under the agreement. The circuit judge ruled in favor of Burton on the ground that the agreement was against public policy, and Sherman appealed. Issue: Was this contingency fee contract between a doctor and his patient enforceable? (continued) rog80328_05_c05_089-110.indd 107 10/26/12 5:37 PM Section 5.6 Chapter Summary CHAPTER 5 Case Study: Sherman v. Burton (continued) Discussion: The appellate court concluded that the contract was unenforceable because it violated public policy. The court stated that a “contract must be measured by its tendency, and not merely by what was done to carry it out.” At the time of the contract, Sherman and Burton were contemplating Burton’s lawsuit against the railway company, and the payment for Sherman’s services was proportionate to any award Burton would get. In order to win money at trial, an expert witness like Dr. Sherman would be critical and the two men were considering that Sherman would testify at the trial. Sherman’s direct interest in the case provided him with a strong motive for misrepresentation and exaggeration to the jury. The appellate court concluded that “a t...
View Full Document

This test prep was uploaded on 04/09/2014 for the course BUS 311 taught by Professor Parker during the Spring '10 term at Ashford University.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online