Case Analysis - Lucy v. Zehmer Contract PDF

Preview

Summary

In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, Zehmer signed a piece of paper agreeing to sell his farm to Lucy, a friend. However, he later refused the sale stipulating that he was drunk during the time of the agreement and it was just a joke and never intended to take it seriously (Kubasek et al, p. 347, 2020). I...

Description

Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer Angeli Perez

1. Identify the contractual element Zehmer contended was missing. In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, Zehmer signed a piece of paper agreeing to sell his farm to Lucy, a friend. However, he later refused the sale stipulating that he was drunk during the time of the agreement and it was just a joke and never intended to take it seriously (Kubasek et al, p. 347, 2020). In order for a contract to be valid, there must be an offer and an acceptance; and the three elements of an offer must be sustainable at the time of making and accepting the offer: "(1) serious intent by the offeror to be bound to an agreement, (2) reasonably definite terms, and (3) communication to the offeree," (Kubasek et al, p. 347). In this case, the offeror (Lucy), made the offer and the offeree (Zehmer) accepted. After analyzing this case, the contractual element that Zehmer said was missing is the intent. He explains that he was under the influence of alcohol and that he singed it in jest. However, his actions and behavior showed contrarily that his intention was to sign the contract and sell his property to Lucy. 2. Summarize the court ruling and explain the reason for the ruling. The court ruling was in favor of the plaintiff. The reason for this ruling is based on a contract law that stipulates: "We must look to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention. 'The Law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts,' " (Kubasek et al, pp. 347-348). Justice Buchanan understood that Zehmer's signing of the agreement shows that he genuinely recognized the contract, not that he was making a joke about it. In addition, they determined that the parties were not so inebriated as to render the agreement void. Therefore, the statement that it was "in jest" was considered irrelevant. 3. Agree or disagree with the ruling and include a rationale to support your ideas. I agree with the ruling of this case because of various reasons. After studying the elements of a contract and how the offer and acceptance work, I understand that the plaintiff created the offer, defined the terms, and communicated it to the defendant. Also, there was intention from both parties and consideration (money). Therefore, the process was clear and concise. Also, one of the legal principles from this chapter states, "In determining intent to enter into a contract, the court looks at the person's objective manifestation of intent and does not try to interpret what the person may have been secretly thinking," (Kubasek et al, p. 348) meaning that the court

considers a person's factual overt speech rather that their hidden and unspoken intent. In this case, Mr. Zehmer never verbally indicated that he did not want to continue with the sale. If Zehmer was actually drunk and Lucy took advantage of him and was aware of the intoxication, I would be in favor of the defendant. But they discussed the matter for more than thirty minutes and addressed the document voluntarily. 4. Summarize a personal experience in which you entered into 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. A very common contract that many people fail to understand is Facebook's terms and conditions, and that I personally was ignorant of when I first created my Facebook account in 2011. When Facebook gave me the Terms of Service, that pretty much represented the offer, and by me clicking on "I agree," I am agreeing to everything that Facebook stipulates on their contract, including taking my personal information and sharing with companies. In other words, selling my information. As to the intention, I had a similar situation as the Lucy v. Zehmer case. I never intended to agree with Facebook sharing my personal information, but it was because I did not read all the pages on the terms and conditions. The consideration was the promise to give me access to Facebook and be able to use it. With that been said, all the elements were present, except the fact that I accepted the agreement without truly understanding the terms and conditions. When people started noticing what Facebook was doing, they had no choice than give people the option to adjust their privacy settings and prevent Facebook from selling user's personal data.

Reference Kubasek et al. (2020). Business Ethics. McGraw Hill Connect. Retrieved from https://playerui.mheducation.com/#/epub/sn_3b37d#epubcfi(%2F6%2F46%5Bdata-uuiddef3a49aeb4b4123aa50e93683c3b794%5D!%2F4%2F1:0)

2021,...