benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / An actress went to a plastic surgeon for removal of an abnormal growth on her…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

An actress went to a plastic surgeon for removal of an abnormal growth on her right cheek. Under a written contract, the plastic surgeon agreed to surgically remove the growth for 1,000.Astheactresssubsequentlyrecalled,justbeforesigningtheagreementthepartiesorallyagreedthatifanyadditionalmedicalprocedureswererequiredduringsurgery,theywouldbeincludedinthe1,000. As the actress subsequently recalled, just before signing the agreement the parties orally agreed that if any additional medical procedures were required during surgery, they would be included in the 1,000 fee. The plastic surgeon, however, has no recollection of any such oral agreement. As agreed, the surgery was performed on an outpatient basis at the plastic surgeon's office. She applied a localized anesthesia that enabled the actress to remain conscious during surgery. While the operation was being performed, the plastic surgeon noticed another growth on the actress's neck. As the plastic surgeon subsequently recalled, she informed the actress about the growth and recommended that it be removed as well. According to the plastic surgeon's account, the actress orally agreed to have the growth removed for an additional 500.Theactresshasnorecollectionofanysuchoralagreement.Theplasticsurgeonperformedbothremovalproceduressatisfactorily.Followingthesurgery,theactresspaidtheplasticsurgeon500. The actress has no recollection of any such oral agreement. The plastic surgeon performed both removal procedures satisfactorily. Following the surgery, the actress paid the plastic surgeon 1,000, but refused to pay any additional money for the removal of the second growth. After unsuccessfully attempting to collect the 500,theplasticsurgeonbroughtsuitagainsttheactresstorecovertheadditionalfee.Attrial,theplasticsurgeonobjectedtotheintroductionoftestimonyregardinganyoralagreementmadebeforethewrittencontractwassigned.Bythesametoken,theactressobjectedtotheintroductionoftestimonyconcerninganyoralagreementmadeduringsurgery.Willtheplasticsurgeonbeentitledtorecovertheadditional500, the plastic surgeon brought suit against the actress to recover the additional fee. At trial, the plastic surgeon objected to the introduction of testimony regarding any oral agreement made before the written contract was signed. By the same token, the actress objected to the introduction of testimony concerning any oral agreement made during surgery. Will the plastic surgeon be entitled to recover the additional 500 if both offerings of parol evidence are admitted and believed?
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
An actress went to a plastic surgeon for removal of an abnormal growth on her right cheek. Under a written contract, the plastic surgeon agreed to surgically remove the growth for 1,000.Astheactresssubsequentlyrecalled,justbeforesigningtheagreementthepartiesorallyagreedthatifanyadditionalmedicalprocedureswererequiredduringsurgery,theywouldbeincludedinthe1,000 fee. The plastic surgeon, however, has no recollection of any such oral agreement. As agreed, the surgery was performed on an outpatient basis at the plastic surgeon's office. She applied a localized anesthesia that enabled the actress to remain conscious during surgery. While the operation was being performed, the plastic surgeon noticed another growth on the actress's neck. As the plastic surgeon subsequently recalled, she informed the actress about the growth and recommended that it be removed as well. According to the plastic surgeon's account, the actress orally agreed to have the growth removed for an additional 500.Theactresshasnorecollectionofanysuchoralagreement.Theplasticsurgeonperformedbothremovalproceduressatisfactorily.Followingthesurgery,theactresspaidtheplasticsurgeon1,000, but refused to pay any additional money for the removal of the second growth. After unsuccessfully attempting to collect the 500,theplasticsurgeonbroughtsuitagainsttheactresstorecovertheadditionalfee.Attrial,theplasticsurgeonobjectedtotheintroductionoftestimonyregardinganyoralagreementmadebeforethewrittencontractwassigned.Bythesametoken,theactressobjectedtotheintroductionoftestimonyconcerninganyoralagreementmadeduringsurgery.Willtheplasticsurgeonbeentitledtorecovertheadditional500 if both offerings of parol evidence are admitted and believed?
Original LaTeX notation
An actress went to a plastic surgeon for removal of an abnormal growth on her right cheek. Under a written contract, the plastic surgeon agreed to surgically remove the growth for $1,000. As the actress subsequently recalled, just before signing the agreement the parties orally agreed that if any additional medical procedures were required during surgery, they would be included in the $1,000 fee. The plastic surgeon, however, has no recollection of any such oral agreement. As agreed, the surgery was performed on an outpatient basis at the plastic surgeon's office. She applied a localized anesthesia that enabled the actress to remain conscious during surgery. While the operation was being performed, the plastic surgeon noticed another growth on the actress's neck. As the plastic surgeon subsequently recalled, she informed the actress about the growth and recommended that it be removed as well. According to the plastic surgeon's account, the actress orally agreed to have the growth removed for an additional $500. The actress has no recollection of any such oral agreement. The plastic surgeon performed both removal procedures satisfactorily. Following the surgery, the actress paid the plastic surgeon $1,000, but refused to pay any additional money for the removal of the second growth. After unsuccessfully attempting to collect the $500, the plastic surgeon brought suit against the actress to recover the additional fee. At trial, the plastic surgeon objected to the introduction of testimony regarding any oral agreement made before the written contract was signed. By the same token, the actress objected to the introduction of testimony concerning any oral agreement made during surgery. Will the plastic surgeon be entitled to recover the additional $500 if both offerings of parol evidence are admitted and believed?

choices

  1. No, because the oral agreements contradict each other; neither would be enforceable under the so-called knock-out rule.
  2. No, because in removing the growth from the actress's neck, the plastic surgeon performed a legal duty already owed her that was neither doubtful nor the subject of an honest dispute.
  3. Yes, because the oral modification of the prior writing was fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the writing was executed.
  4. Yes, because the actress would be unjustly enriched by not paying the additional $500, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of her oral promise.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

task_id
807d5dbd-9624-565e-a295-894f7a604f54
task_key
all--test--807d5dbd-9624-565e-a295-894f7a604f54
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import