1. The Defendants admit to statements 1 through 4, clearly stated in the Plaintiff’s claim.
2. The Defendants do not agree with the claim made against them. They deny that $30,000 or any amount is owing to the Plaintiff for the following reasons explained below:
The contract between the Plaintiff (Susan Jones) and Defendants (Carol and John Allen Brown) was made on terms that the Plaintiff would be a surrogate mother for them in exchange for $50,000. However, the agreement to act as a surrogate mother is considered a statutory illegal contract, specifically when it is done for the exchange of a fee or payment (pg. 173 textbook). This is further supported in section 6 (1) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA), stating, “No person shall pay consideration to a female person to be a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise that it will be paid” (Section 6(1), The Assisted Human Reproduction …show more content…
2). Although it is illegal for a woman to accept payment for surrogacy, “it is legal to reimburse a surrogate mother for her reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the surrogacy” (http://www.fertilitylawcanada.com/surrogacy-law-in-canada.html). Therefore, a woman can act as a surrogate mother and accept money only to reimburse vital expenses such as large hospital fees, (not) as payment for the act itself. Plaintiff Susan Jones on the other hand performed the act of a surrogate mother for payment. This means this contract is illegal at statute. It contradicts the legislation and cannot be made compulsory on either party. Consequently, the Plaintiff, is not obligated to hand over the baby. But the Plaintiff’s claim of
2. The Defendants do not agree with the claim made against them. They deny that $30,000 or any amount is owing to the Plaintiff for the following reasons explained below:
The contract between the Plaintiff (Susan Jones) and Defendants (Carol and John Allen Brown) was made on terms that the Plaintiff would be a surrogate mother for them in exchange for $50,000. However, the agreement to act as a surrogate mother is considered a statutory illegal contract, specifically when it is done for the exchange of a fee or payment (pg. 173 textbook). This is further supported in section 6 (1) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA), stating, “No person shall pay consideration to a female person to be a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise that it will be paid” (Section 6(1), The Assisted Human Reproduction …show more content…
2). Although it is illegal for a woman to accept payment for surrogacy, “it is legal to reimburse a surrogate mother for her reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the surrogacy” (http://www.fertilitylawcanada.com/surrogacy-law-in-canada.html). Therefore, a woman can act as a surrogate mother and accept money only to reimburse vital expenses such as large hospital fees, (not) as payment for the act itself. Plaintiff Susan Jones on the other hand performed the act of a surrogate mother for payment. This means this contract is illegal at statute. It contradicts the legislation and cannot be made compulsory on either party. Consequently, the Plaintiff, is not obligated to hand over the baby. But the Plaintiff’s claim of