Good on Mom !

'Responsibility to provide'

The mother, identified only by her surname Luo, raised both her sons after she and her husband divorced.

Ms Luo said she had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars funding both her sons through dentistry school
but became worried they would be unwilling to care for her in old age.

Subsequently, she signed a contract with both of them stipulating they would pay her a portion
of their earnings as repayments for the school fees, up to a total of $1.7m.

The elder son reached an agreement with his mother and settled the contract for a smaller amount !

However, the younger son, identified by his last name Chu, argued
that he was very young when he signed the agreement, and the contract should be considered invalid.

Mr Chu also argued that he had worked in his mother's dental clinic for years after graduating
and had helped her make more than the amount he was now ordered to pay her.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the judges had reached their decision mainly because they thought
the contract was valid since the son was an adult when he signed it and was not forced to do so.

Ms Luo said she became worried they would be unwilling to care for her in old age .