Valerie M. Rodriguez April 9, 2022 BUS-206 - Business Law I / Prof. Dixon Module 6 - Case Analysis - Lucy v. Zehmer Contractual Element - The contractual element missing from the Ferguson Farm purchase from the Zehmers (the defendants), according to Zehmer, was intent. Zehmer's viewpoint of the discussion to sell the farm to Lucy was not made with sufficient intent between parties since they were under the influence of alcohol. Zehmer took the conversation as more of a joke thus essentially playing into Lucy's offer. Zehmer also convinced his his wife the agreement was not to be taken seriously because it was a joke. Court Ruling - The initial ruling was in favor of the defendants however the plaintiff, Lucy, was not willing to accept that as final therefore filed an appeal. The facts were presented and concluded with the case being reversed in favor of the plaintiff. In a nutshell, the offeror (Lucy) presented the offeree (Zehmer) with an intent to purchase to which the offeree accepted when the agreement was put in writing and signed by all parties. Although Zehmer said it was made "in jest", courts do not see it in the same manner. The courts are not going to look at a transaction from a party's viewpoint, in this case as a joke, but instead review the evidence and determine it was bound by intent. Personal Opinion - I believe the court's decision to reverse the ruling in favor of the plaintiff was the right move. Although casually drinking whiskey for hours is not exactly the same as a scheduled meeting in a conference room drinking coffee, there was in fact intent of a business transaction to purchase the land. As further explained on website, Justia.com, Zehmer wrote an agreement not once, but twice. His first agreement reflected only he as the seller but when Lucy pointed out his wife would also need to sign, Zehmer rewrote to reflect them both as the sellers. Despite Zehmer's idea of this transaction being a joke and not to be taken seriously, Lucy viewed the offer as a serious one. "The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is know to the other party. The law, therefore, judges of an agreement between two persons exclusively from those expressions of their intentions which are communicated between them." (Dynamic Business Law, 2017) Personal Experience - It took me a little while to think of a personal experience that compares to this case, but one came to mind. About five years ago a couple friends shared on social media their experiences with making easy money. You probably guessed it: a pyramid scheme. These are friends I've had a long time so decided to sign up. There was a meeting with a