Current Edition- California Business Practice

The Peacemaker Quarterly- April 2014

Friday, November 20, 2009

14-1 Lucy v Zehmer

F: Lucy wanted to purchase Zehmer's farm for eight years. One night Lucy approached Zehmer with a bet that Zehmer would not sell Lucy the farm for $50,000. Zehemer counter bet that Lucy pay would not pay $50,000. Over drinks they further discussed the bet or deal and eventually drew up a contract. Mr. and Mrs. Zehmer signed the contract as well as Lucy. Later Zehmer refused to honor the contract because it was a joke and he was under the influence of alcohol.

I: Whether the courts should use the subjective or objective test in determining if there was enforceable contract.

R: "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." The courts also held that despite the intentions of a party the actions which convey meaning to the other party must be consistant.

C: The Appeals court of Virginia found in favor of the plaintiff, Lucy because Zehmer's conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe that there was a real and binding contract.

Participants: Kevin P., Hannah M., Kelly K., Maki M., Nicole R., Skyler G., Ryan C., Justin N.

Opinion: Some of the group agree with the courts because Zehmer's actions, despite his intentions would lead a reasonable person to believe that he intended a real agreement and that the contract was in fact real. Despite his supposed alcohol consumption, he himself admitted that he was not intoxicated. Zehmer also admitted that the price was fair and that his true intentions were undisclosed to Lucy.

Others in the group however feel that despite Zehmer's poor decisions he should not loose his home and business because of something that was in his mind a joke. Also, it would be wrong of the court to intrude into the private lives and conversations of individuals. This could set a slippery slope for anyone who jokingly signs there name on napkin.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.