Outline Of Relevant LawsMental Capacity Act (PART II PERSONS WHO LACK CAPACITY)For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment mind or brain.Then the court will have the right to appoint a representative to act on behalf and in his best interest.Commercial Law Law of ContractA contract is an agreement between two or more parties, the terms of which alter their rights and obligations which are legally binding. Whether both sides have agreed, or a meeting of the minds, is objectively confirmed from facts. The ideas of offer and acceptance provide in many, albeit not all, cases the starting point for analysing whether agreement has been reached.The Law of NegligenceThe law imposes on all of us a duty to take reasonable care so as not to cause harm to another person or his property. If the defendant can prove that, one or more of the four elements of negligence were not present, he would have a good defence to the case. The defendant can claim that even if he owed a duty of care, breached it and caused the plaintiff’s loss, the plaintiff’s loss was remote. In addition, the ‘but-for’ test states that the defendant will be liable only if the claimant’s damage would not have occurred but for his negligence – or, looked at the other way round, the defendant will not be liable if the damage would, or could, have happened anyway, regardless of his negligence. Relevant case (Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital)This case mentions about a patient who suffered pain in her neck,right shoulder and arms. However, due to the fact that in less than 1% of the cases can decompression caused paraplegia, the neurosurgeon did not alert the patient of the risk. The verdict was that the court rejected her claim for damages, reason given was that the explanation of remote side effects was not required. This case is relevant in a way that the neurosurgeon showed negligence when he did not explain it has a slight chance of causing paraplegia which is similar to our case. In addition, this case also demonstrated its relevance as it was a rare case hence the neurosurgeon might have overlooked.Arguments1.The defence’s first submission is that jennie “thought” that it is probably a case of food poisoning, we can assert that jennie did not clarify with Mr Lim that his illness was indeed food poisoning. Given that Mr Lim was suffering from dementia,there is reasonable doubt that Mr Lim could have recalled correctly about what he ate.2. It was established that each doctor has many years of experience, as Medical professionals are held to a standard, there is no deviation from the standard medical procedures, the doctors would have followed standard procedures while he is on duty.3.It is established that jennie ” told the doctor to do whatever he thought was necessary” implies that jennie has given consent to Dr Bert on proceeding with further medical procedures seen fit. We respectfully submit that our client(Dr Bert) did not ask Mr Lim what has happened to him or what allergy he had, this is a deviation from the standard procedures.However, when Mr Lim came in, he was pale and felt faint,he had to lie down immediately, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to give information that tell Dr Bert about the allergy, and Mr Lim has a history of dementia and based on the fact that he does not have the record on hand, he may not have known that he was allergic to this drug. Given the fact that he was in critical condition and in the Doctor’s expert opinion may have died if the drug was not administered immediately, therefore there was insufficient time given the conditions of Mr Lim. The clinic was busy on that day, retrieving the records may be too time consuming due to the number of patients in the clinic at the time. Coupled with the fact that the drug has very low allergy rate, there was little risk and therefore was not reasonably foreseeable for Mr Lim to have suffered allergy reaction to that drug.We would like to begin by drawing the attention of the court to the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital, “If a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent”.We will henceforth conclude that Dr Bert, who is of Expert Opinion did act in accordance with the expert opinion, thus we assert that Dr Bert is not negligent in regards to the argument.4.We contest that should any practitioner attending to Mr Lim, the same outcome will unfold, that is, the drug would be administered and Mr Lim would have suffered the effects of the allergic reaction.The principle of this has been demonstrated in Whitehouse V Jordan1980 . Thus it cannot be considered that Dr Bert’s standard of care did fall below that of a reasonable doctor in the circumstances.5.It is established that Mr Lim has mild dementia?but there was also no mention on the capacity to contract, the defense assumes that Mr Lim have the capacity to contract, under the Mental capacity Act. This is further supported by Mr Lim’s ability to “play Mahjong,teaching line dancing class”, this shows that Mr Lim is able to make decisions for himself, thus able to enter into a contract without Jennie.6.We also question the legitimacy of Jennie suing Tom’s General Practice, it is established that Mr Lim does have the ability to make decisions himself, and his deputy, Jennie is against his interest as Mr Lim ” Is happy to leave this unhappy incident behind him” which implies that he did not wish to further pursue the matter.7.We contend that Jennie’s claims of damages arising from her “phobia” is invalid, since jennie’s psychiatric damages was not backed up by medical reports, we cannot confirm that jennie had indeed suffered psychiatric damages. Furthermore, the defense contends that it is not remotely foreseeable that one of her next of kin would be suffering a loss of damage and claim against our client. Hence, our client do not owe jennie a duty of care. In addition, It is also not remote that the injection of drugs into Mr Lim’s body would eventually cause psychiatric damages to Jennie.8.Agreement of lesser sum($0 in this case), our client still sue Jennie to recover the balance( $200 + Consultation fee),Since the time lapse is considered short, we believe that the consideration is still “fresh” thus, our client can exercise the right to recover the balance which is full amount in the case.