Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This couple will have a slam dunk in court. They paid THOUSANDS of dollars for this. This is not about racism this is about a huge blunder on the part of a corporation that did not live up to its contractual obligations. This was a life altering event (the birth of a child). This couple could have easily adopted a black orphan from this country or another, if that's what they wanted. Instead they opted to pay thousands of dollars and trusted a company to deliver them a child that would look just like them, that would be born by one of them and therefore carry their traits. They chose a donor based on preference of what would be the closest to if they could have a child naturally.
This is like someone who goes in for relatively minor surgery and they wake up missing a leg. This couple will love this child regardless, but this is one case where the lawsuit is not frivilous in the least. This company made an irreversable mistake due to a tremendous and easily avoidable mistake.
I don't see this ruining the child's life, I mean the kid was born to lesbians through artificial insemination. No way to sugar coat it, this child will have a rough life outside of the home no matter where she goes. Well... if people find out her secret, which is not to hard to figure out. It's none of their business but human nature is to be nosy, judgemental, and gossip about anything outside of societal norms.
Agreed. No matter what the racial implications are for this couple or this child, the company screwed up and they should have to pay. Plain and simple. Hopefully the settlement will fund a nice four year college plus graduate school for the child. And he will have a college essay that will be Ivy League worthy when he tells this whole story!!!
If you went to a vet to have your AKC champion German Shepard ***** inseminated with championed German Shepard semen and the puppies came out mixed breed and worthless would the owner have recourse, or would he be a racist?
Bad analogy, since puppies can be bought and sold but for humans it would be slavery...
As to St. Patrick's Day, it is a cultural celebration, not a racial one. Ironically enough to your misguided comment, the Irish say that on St. Patrick's Day, everyone is Irish.
Well, after slavery and years of intermingling, being an African-American is not really an exact racial designation, particularly since more Africans immigrated here than were transhipped here. But you hear the conservatives complain about Black History Month. Wait until Columbus Day! Isn't October Hispanic Heritage Month?
Agreed. No matter what the racial implications are for this couple or this child, the company screwed up and they should have to pay. Plain and simple. Hopefully the settlement will fund a nice four year college plus graduate school for the child. And he will have a college essay that will be Ivy League worthy when he tells this whole story!!!
They already got their fees refunded. What are their damages? I want to see them prove damages. What does their contract say about resultant damages or purveyor error? Its terrible when folks resort to legal forums for legal relief. Then they have to deal with legal precepts.
I agree that it's a breach of contract issue. My only question is: how is the couple "damaged" here?
The answer to that question skirts the racism issue.
I think this is not so much a contract case as it is a tort case for, essentially, medical negligence and breach of warranty.
They have made a number of arguments (that have been reported in the media, at least, I don't really feel compelled to read through the complaint):
1) The child won't resemble the non-birth mother (and resulting emotional damages, presumably).
2) They are considering relocating from an intolerant town to someplace more accepting (which would result in moving costs, job changes, differences in cost of living, etc.)
3) The couple's fear about their daughter's present and future, including the intolerance of one of the mothers' family depriving the child of relationships with the extended family
It certainly sounds like an interesting case (contrary to the statements of many posters here, the couple very much love and care for their daughter - they are simply seeking damages to cover the unexpected costs that they may face in light of the mix-up).
Ultimately, I'm not terribly sympathetic--it seems to me that there is an intervening cause of these damages that supersedes any liability of the clinic: American racism. That will be a problem for her claims.
I think this case is worth no more than nuisance value (heightened or lowered somewhat by publicity).
As a parent of 7 remember when they were in school and asked to write about their family tree.....happens in many schools.
In my case there was NO problem for them and later on my first Grandaughter asked me about my side of the family and the roots that came from Europe. For her it was an awaking and some knowledge that she never knew about.
Okay, to the issue at hand here. This poor girl will never be able to show anything from her fathers (unknown) side and being raised by a Gay Female couple will also be treated to some words from other kids that they have a daddy and a mommy while she has none. Kids will be cruel and truthful with out a doubt.
Agreed. No matter what the racial implications are for this couple or this child, the company screwed up and they should have to pay. Plain and simple. Hopefully the settlement will fund a nice four year college plus graduate school for the child. And he will have a college essay that will be Ivy League worthy when he tells this whole story!!!
Apparently they returned the fee. It's not as if they have paid nothing. What should the company pay for? The women have a child they love and wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
Bad analogy, since puppies can be bought and sold but for humans it would be slavery...
In the eyes of the law, pets are simply goods. Humans, obviously, are not (and neither are human organs, for that matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWillys
Do you often pay for the wrong items and accept it?
Money was returned. She paid for a service, which was performed. Then she gave birth to a child, to whom she is the mother. It is not an item, but offspring.
I think this is not so much a contract case as it is a tort case for, essentially, medical negligence and breach of warranty.
The case was filed as a medical malpractice case. Like the famous "hairy hand" case. Hawkins v. McGee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
1) The child won't resemble the non-birth mother (and resulting emotional damages, presumably).
If they got what they paid for, the child would not resemble the mother. What if the dad were a swarthy European?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
2) They are considering relocating from an intolerant town to someplace more accepting (which would result in moving costs, job changes, differences in cost of living, etc.)
Prove intolerance based on race, not on their lifestyle. I bet they can't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
3) The couple's fear about their daughter's present and future, including the intolerance of one of the mothers' family depriving the child of relationships with the extended family.
Sure, they are going to get one family on the witness stand and the family will say it does not want to interact with a bi-racial baby. Sure, I can see that happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
It certainly sounds like an interesting case (contrary to the statements of many posters here, the couple very much love and care for their daughter - they are simply seeking damages to cover the unexpected costs that they may face in light of the mix-up).
They are simply seeking money and don't care who they hurt.
Quote:
Summary of Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929).
Facts
Hawkins (P) underwent surgery to repair scar tissue on his hand resulting from burns he sustained from contact with an electrical wire. Dr. McGee (D) gave Hawkins a 100% guarantee that he would be able to repair the scar tissue by grafting skin from his chest to his hand. The surgery was unsuccessful and Hawkins was left with a hairy hand. At trial, Hawkins sought damages for breach of contract due to McGee’s failure to perform including pain and suffering. The jury entered judgment for Hawkins but the judge ordered remittitur. Hawkins refused and brought this appeal.
Issue
How are damages determined for breach of contract?
Holding and Rule
The plaintiff was entitled to expectancy damages plus incidental losses resulting from the breach. Expectancy damages are damages sufficient to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been if the contract had been performed.
In this case, Hawkins was not entitled to damages for pain and suffering because he would still have endured them had the procedure been successful. Hawkins was entitled to the difference between what he sought – a perfect hand, and what he received – a hairy hand. The plaintiff was also entitled to incidental losses resulting from the breach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
