Marcella, 51 years old, lives in Franklin County, Ohio, and suffers from advanced dementia. Marcella's sister Darby

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Marcella, 51 years old, lives in Franklin County, Ohio, and suffers from advanced dementia. Marcella's sister Darby went to court in 20210 and presented evidence of Marcella's dementia to a judge, who declared Marcella mentally incompetent and appointed Darby as her guardian. One year later, Marcella went to a local furniture store, Siddleton Furniture, also in Franklin County, and purchased a luxury dining room set for $18,000, to be paid in monthly payments over two years. After making the first two payments, Marcella stops paying. Siddleton Furniture (plaintiff) sues Marcella (defendant) for breach of contract, demanding the balance as damages. Marcella's attorney argues this is not a valid contract and, therefore, Siddleton cannot recover any damages. Siddleton argues that Marcella had purchased furniture from their store five times in the last 20 years, and had always paid the balance in full until this most recent purchase.

1. (RULES): What test will the court apply to determine if this is a valid contract? Identify and explain (at least two sentences per part) each of the four parts of the test.

2. (APPLICATION and CONCLUSION): You are the judge. Apply each part of the test you identified in question 1 (don't stop at just one) and arrive at a conclusion (supported by case law) as to whether 1) this is a valid contract and 2) based on your response, who do you rule in favor of - plaintiff or defendant. Explain your answer. In your answer, you must include case law support. Remember from our work early in the semester that legal decisions must be supported by precedent. Thus, you must identify a relevant case (by full name) that is posted to the Week 6 Course Content page that would be binding on this court in this case. Once you have identified the case, your answer must show how the facts and holding (not the outcome, but the rule of law the court created) supports your conclusion/holding in this case.