Question 1 If you were the judge in this case which side wou

Question 1: If you were the judge in this case, which side would you have ruled for? Fully explain in 200 words or more

Question 2: Should intoxicated person be held to the same standard as non-intoxicated person when it comes to contracts? Fully explain in 200 words or more

CASE 14-1 LUCY v. ZEHMER SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 196 VA. 493, 84 S.E 2D 516 (1954) Plaintiffs W O. and J. C. Lucy had wanted to purchase Ferguson Farm from the Zehmers for at least eight years. One night, Lucy stopped by the establishment the Zehmers operated and said that he bet Zehmer wouldn\'t accept S50,000 for the place Zehmer replied that he would, but he bet that Lucy wouldn\'t pay $50,000 for it Over the course of the evening, the parties drank whiskey and engaged in casual conversation, with the talk repeatedly returning to the sale of Ferguson Farm Eventually Lucy got Zehmer to draw up a contract for the sale of the farm for $50,000 When Lucy later attempted to enforce the agreement, Zehmer refused to complete the sale, arguing that he had been drunk, and that the agreement to sell the property had been made in jest. Lucy sued to enforce the agreement. The trial court found for the defendants and the plaintiffs appealed JUSTICE BUCHANAN: If it be assumed, contrary to what we think the evidence shows, that Zehmer was jesting about selling his farm to Lucy and that the transaction was intended by him to be a joke, nevertheless the evidence shows that Lucy did not so understand it but considered it to be a serious business transaction and the contract to be binding on the Zehmers as well as on himself. The very next day he arranged with his brother to put up half the money and take a half interest in the land. The day after that he employed an attomey to examine the title. The next night, Tuesday, he was back at Zehmers place and there Zehmer told him for the first time, Lucy said, that he wasn\'t going to sell, and he told Zehmer,\"You know you sold that place fair and square. After receiving the report from his attorney that the title was good, he wrote to Zehmer that he was ready to close the deal Not only did Lucy actually believe, but the evidence shows he was warranted in believing, that the contract represented a serious business transaction and a good faith sale and purchase of the farm. In the field of contracts, as generally elsewhere, \"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.\"

Solution

Answer:

The plaintiff expressed serious intent in the offering, despite the defendant’s lack of seriousness. The terms were clear and certain and communication of the defendant and plaintiff was present throughout. Therefore, the offer is valid resulting in a binding contract.

OPINION: I believe the decision was correct in this case. A person should never sign anything unless 100 percent sure of what he or she is doing and if you agree, everything must be understood. Whether joking or not, there is still a contract being formed that has the right to be upheld. By expressing intentions and communicating, agreements should be taken seriously.