P began treatment with D. It included the fabrication and fitting of three crowns. P last saw D in December 2002. After being treated by a different dentist the next summer, P learned that the crowns were not fabricated with porcelain on gold as per the P-D contract. P sued D for breach of contract. P’s witness testified that D had promised P that the crowns would be gold. D testified that she had no independent recollection of any conversation with Ms. Khiterer about the composite material for the crowns. D testified that an all-porcelain crown was therapeutically superior to a crown containing any metal, including the gold alloy because the presence of metal created a risk of patient reaction. The cost of each is the same, but the cement that binds the all-porcelain crown is more expensive.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.