Wsu-Brief Lucy V. Zehmer

557 Words3 Pages
Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief Issue: Is the contract valid if both or one of the parties are intoxicated or impared. Lucy from now on referred to as Party1 and Zehmer from now on referred to as Part2 Facts: Party1 offered to Part2 to purchase Party2’s farm for $50,000. Paty2 and Lucy both signed an agreement that promised Party2 would sell the farm to Party1. Party2 claimed the agreement to sell the farm was made when they were both intoxicated at only meant the acceptance as a joke. Party2 didn’t believe that Party1‘s offer was genuine, because they had been drinking and signed on the back of a receipt. Party1 offered Party2 $5usd to show the authenticity of the contract, Party2 refused. The next day Party1 sold half interest to his brother to be able to afford the sale. When Party1 presented the money to Party2 and ask for the deed, Party2 refused to sell him the farm. Party1 then sued Party2 refusing to sell the farm for $50,000. Law: Laws the court used are: “The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party.” Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, 71, p. 74. and “Specific performance, it is true, is not a matter of absolute or arbitrary right, but is addressed to the reasonable and sound discretion of the court.” First Nat. Bank v. Roanoke Oil Co., supra, 169, VA. At p. 116, 192 S.E. at p. 771. Explanation: Party2 testified that he was drunk “as a Georgia pine”. His wife though testified that she told her husband that he should have given Party1 a ride home. This shows that they were both mentally ready to enter into a contract. The Supreme Court also argued that both parties

More about Wsu-Brief Lucy V. Zehmer

Open Document