BUS 206 Module 6-1 Case Analysis
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
206
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by ChefGalaxy12800
1
6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer
Jamie Chrystal
December 1, 2023
Nanci Carr
2
1.
Zehmer contended that the contractual element missing was the intent. For a contract
to be valid, both parties must have a clear intention to create a legally binding
agreement. Zehmer argued that he was intoxicated and that the agreement was made
in jest, implying that he did not have the serious intention to sell the property,
therefore making the contract invalid.
2.
The court ruled in favor of Lucy, the plaintiff. The court stated that the contract was
enforceable because the agreement, as looked at by a reasonable person, was what
mattered in determining the contract's intent, not the secret. The court found that
Zehmer’s actions, writing and signing the contract, even while he was intoxicated,
would lead a person to believe that he did intend to sell the property.
3.
I agree with the court’s ruling. To ensure fairness in commercial transactions, intent in
contract law is important. If parties could get out of contractual obligations by
claiming they were joking or didn’t mean it, it would create uncertainty and trust in
contractual agreements. Despite Zehmer’s claim of intoxication, he was coherent
enough to draft and sign a contract, which would lead people to believe he did intend
to agree, making the court’s decision to enforce the contract justified.
4.
A personal experience I went through regarding a contract was when my family and I
needed a place to stay. My ex-husband at the time spoke to my uncle and he agreed to
allow us to stay in the in-law apartment of his home. My ex-husband agreed to give
my uncle $1200 a month and a portion of the utilities. I, however, was not a part of
their verbal contracts. We had separated and my uncle had informed me that my ex
had not paid rent for the past three months or any of the utilities. I felt like he should
3
be held responsible because they made the verbal contract together. However, in the
end, he brought me to court for an eviction and the judge ruled in his favor. I had to
pay $200 a week, which was what I could afford until I moved out with my children.
The contract elements that were in place were offer acceptance and consideration.
The element that was missing was competency and capacity. Because I wasn't a part
of the verbal contract it could have been ruled that I wasn't personally bound to the
contract terms. But the court ruled that I was because of my marital status when it
was agreed upon.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
Sources
:
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., & Barkacs, L. L.
(2023).
Dynamic Business Law
(6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill LLC.