Consider this variation of Cidis v. White, 71 Misc. 2d 481, 336 N.Y.S.2d 362 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Cty., 1972): Dependent daughter without her parents’ knowledge made an appointment with Dr. White to be fitted for contact lenses. Dr. White ordered the contact lenses, and they were of no use to anyone except for daughter Cidis. Daughter Cidis was a minor, and her contracts were voidable under state law. Father Cidis elected to void the contract. Dr. White sued for quasi-contract and restitution.
- Assume that Father Cidis has an obligation to provide Daughter Cidis with “necessaries.”
- Should Father Cidis be liable for the fmv of the contact lenses – not on the theory that there was a contract that was admittedly voidable, but because Dr. White provided his
daughter with a “necessary?”
- Are contact lenses one of life’s “necessaries” if Daughter Cidis does not see very well?
- Would it matter that contact lenses are cheaper than spectacles?
- If contact lenses are a “necessary” and neither Father Cidis nor Daughter Cidis pays for the contact lenses and Dr. White finally gives up trying to collect from either, does Father Cidis have gross income? Why or why not?