Rowe was admitted to the hospital, suffering from a critical illness. He was given emergency treatment and later underwent surgery.
Rowe was admitted to the hospital, suffering from a critical illness. He was given emergency treatment and later underwent surgery. On at least four occasions, Rowe’s two sons discussed with the hospital the payment for services it was to render. The first of these four conversations took place the day after Rowe was admitted. The sons informed the treating physician that their father had no financial means but that they themselves would pay for such services. During the other conversations, the sons authorized whatever treatment their father needed, assuring the hospital that they would pay for the services. After Rowe’s discharge, the hospital brought this action against the sons to recover the unpaid bill for the services rendered to their father. Are the sons’ promises to the hospital enforceable? Explain
As per the Suretyship Provision, the person who agrees to the payment of any specific debts, as a guarantee, is responsible for the execution of the agreement.
In this case, there is no written agreement signed by Person R's children to pay the hospital bills; but the availability of the collateral-based promise imposes the liability of the payment of hospital bills.
As per the Suretyship Provision, Person R's children are going to be responsible for the payment of hospital-related expenses. It reflects the collateral-based promise that is made by Person R's children for the payment of the hospital bills.