Lucy vs. Zehmer

shimmy BriefW. O. LUCY AND J. C. LUCY v. A. H. ZEHMER AND IDA S. ZEHMERFacts of the CaseAfter several drinks, Zehmer (D) wrote and signed a prune in which he concord to sell his farm to Lucy (P) for $50,000. Zehmer insisted that he had been intoxicated and thought the matter was a joke, non realizing that Lucy had been serious. Zehmer was trying to astound Lucy to admit to not having $50,000. Lucy claimed that he was not intoxicated and believed that Zehmer was also sober. Lucy brought suit for specific performance when Zehmer refused to consummate the transaction.The trial court ruled for Zehmer holding that Lucy had not established a right to specific performance. On appeal the Supreme judicatory of Virginia found that Zehmer was sober enough to know what he was doing and that his words and actions warranted a reasonable belief that a stimulate was intended. Question In determining whether a party has make a valid offer, how does the court determine whether the party had th e intent to contract? Holding The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County, Virginia and stated Zehmer had signed a binding contract.ReasoningThe parties of a contract do not have to mentally agree to the deal. If their words or actions have the reasonable content of a serious business transaction, undisclosed intentions are immaterial and do not render the contract unenforceable. A contract must have a full(a) faith offer and a good faith acceptance with terms of consideration known by each party. The court ruled that exclusively because Zehmer had not mentally agreed to the deal, his conduct indicated to Lucy in a reasonable manner that the transaction was not a joke, and Lucy had no knowledge of Zehmers mental assessment.