Module Six Case Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

In Lucy v. Zhemer, Justice Buchanan ruled in favor of Lucy due to several factors....

Description

Module 6 Case Analysis BUS 206 Southern New Hampshire University

In Lucy v. Zhemer, Justice Buchanan ruled in favor of Lucy due to several factors. However, Zhemer first argued that during the drafting of the contract, Lucy and himself had been drinking whiskey which limited his contractual capacity. Zhemer stated that he and Lucy were “High as Georgia pine” when they signed the document. Lucy argued that even though they were drinking, they were not intoxicated. Lucy also noted that Zhemer’s management of the terms of the contract led him to believe that Zhemer had full understanding of the situation which in turn, would refute his claim of lack of capacity due to intoxication. Zhemer’s also argued that the contract was made in jest as a form of amusement. In the court ruling, Justice Buchanan notes that Zhemer considered the matter to be a serious business transaction by the action he took following the meeting between both parties. Zhemer secured an attorney and arranged for this brother to put up half the funds for half the stake in the farm. Justice Buchanan also makes a notable statement, “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. 2020), indicating that courts interpret using objective standards, not internal thoughts. Justice Buchanan ultimately ruled in favor of plaintiff by arguing that Zhemer’s conduct and words would warrant a reasonable person to believe that he intended a real agreement. While there is a lot to consider in this case, Justice Buchanan ruling in favor of Zhemer was fair-minded in interpreting and applying common law in this matter. As I look at the facts provided, it is clear that Lucy had been pursing purchasing the farm from Zhemer. I believe that the case notes 8 years. Even though both parties were enjoying drinks, it is clear that Lucy did not take advantage of Zhemer during the drafting of the contract. Furthermore, discussing

definite terms such as the selling price would lead a reasonable person to believe that Zhemer had intentions since the selling price was above the initials purchasing price. I ultimately agree with Justice Buchanan’s ruling because both parties engaged in the creation of a valid contract; Offer and agreement, bargained for consideration, contained legal object, and both were in a state of contractual capacity. A few years ago, my sisters and I agreed to renting a cabin for the 4th of July holiday weekend at Big Bear Mountain. We discussed how each of us would split the cost amongst each sibling there by touching on every element of an offer; serious intent, definite terms, and communication to the offerees. The offer was discussed early in the year to allow for proper planning and lower rates. Unfortunately, I had an important project that unexpectedly dropped on my desk causing me to back out of our agreement. The project was originally assigned to a peer of mine but due to a death in his family, he had to take time off from work. I had two weeks noticed but was I able to delegate a handful of tasks to assist me with the project. Luckily, I was able complete the project in time to at least enjoy 1 of the 3 days there. I still paid my share of the agreement being that it was no one’s fault. However, I can see how this matter could be make liable for my shared of the cost if it were taken to civil court. The agreement or contract had all the necessary elements of a valid contract making it enforceable in a court of law. The contract had an offer and agreement, bargained for consideration, contained legal objects, and all three of us were in a state of contractual capacity....