6-2 Case Analysis - Lucy v. Zehmer - BUS 206 PDF

Preview

Summary

6-2 Case Analysis - Lucy v. Zehmer - BUS 206...

Description

1

6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer Identify the contractual element Zehmer contended was missing. There are three elements a contract needs to be considered valid; serious intent by the offeror to be bound to an agreement, reasonably definite terms, and communications to the offeree. In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, Lucy would need to show serious intent of buying the farm, each party would need to agree to the terms of the sale, and Zehmer would need to accept the offer. In court, Zehmer’s attorney claimed Zehmer never actually intended to sell the farm, so the contract would be invalid. However, Zehmer only made his wife aware of this agreement being a joke; he told her right before she signed. Lucy was unaware of the hidden intent, until he attempted to claim his property. Summarize the court ruling and explain the reason for the ruling. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Lucy, after an initial appeal. “The courts interpret the parties’ manifestations of intent, not internal thought processes.” [ CITATION Nan20 \l 1033 ], meaning you cannot go to court and say you were “only joking”, when your words and actions convey serious intent, any reasonable person would believe to be true. If on the outside, people believe you are serious about the agreement, but inside your mind, you intend to be deceitful; this would not be a valid argument in court, “…the courts are not interested in hidden intent.” [ CITATION Nan20 \l 1033 ] The three essential elements of an agreement were present, which constitutes a valid contract. Agree or disagree with the ruling and include a rationale to support your ideas. I agree with the ruling; “Sometimes an offeror may try to avoid being bound to a contract by later claiming she was only joking when she made the offer…” [ CITATION Nan20 \l 1033 ], although, it was the opposite way in this case. A person cannot just go into a court room and say they “didn’t mean it” and expect everything to go back to normal. If this were a valid argument,

2

it would set a dangerous precedent for other cases. I didn’t mean to crash the car. I didn’t mean to drink and drive. I didn’t mean to kill her. (You get my point.) There is no technology that exists today, where we can investigate someone’s brain and see their true intent; even lie detector tests are not immiscible in court anymore. Point being, we cannot just take “someone’s word for it,” there needs to be evidence. Summarize a personal experience in which you entered a contract that you did not think of as a binding contract at the time. Consider which elements of a contract were in place and which were missing. Before Apple implemented all the extra safeguards, we are now familiar with (thumbprint and Face ID); keeping a credit or debit card attached to your phone was risky. I would say, most of us, are guilty of agreeing to those “terms and conditions” that pop up when you sign up for a website or when an app downloads, without even reading it. However, that was a contract that you just signed. One day, I agreed to one of those “terms and conditions”, without reading it and ended up being charged for a yearly subscription to the app. All the elements of the contract were there: the app offered me use of their services in exchange for money, they provided me all I needed to know about this exchange, and I agreed. The only thing that was lacking, was my attention. Now, luckily, I must approve any purchase placed on the phone with my thumbprint.

References Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., & Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic Business Law; Fifth Edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Productions.

3...