Lucy v. Zehmer Hailey King BUS-206: Business Law 1 Southern New Hampshire University December 11, 2023
Lucy v. Zehmer Contractual Element A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that formalizes a relationship or transaction. There are several reasons for using a contract including business, buying property, trading services or goods, employment, and many more. When a contract is used properly, all parties are aware of their rights and responsibilities upon entering into the agreement. Contracts protect everyone involved in the transaction. There are six elements of a contract. The first is offer, a party needs to make an offer either through expression or intention. The second element is acceptance, another party needs to accept the offer either through expressed acceptance or implied acceptance. The third element is awareness; the parties must be aware of what they are signing. The fourth element is consideration, which means there is an exchange of value in the contract. The fifth element is capacity, which means parties must have the capacity to sign a valid contract. Examples of someone lacking capacity a party is underage, mentally unwell, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, under duress, or that they simply do not speak the language used in writing the contract. Finally, the sixth element is legality. A contract is illegal if it violates public policy, is made under misleading circumstances, involves illegal activities, or involves someone lacking mental capacity. In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, Zehmer claimed that he was joking making the contract and the element of intent was missing from the offer of the agreement (Hale, nd). Court Ruling In the case Lucy v Zehmer, the court sided with the plaintiff and held that the contract was valid. Although the defendant claimed that he was joking after the contract was made, the
court disagreed. Upon the plaintiff bringing his brother back with half of the money for the land, the defendant claimed he had been drinking, yet his own lawyers said that he was not too drunk to agree to the contract. The court ruled that since the evidence showed that the Plaintiff believed the contract represented a serious business transaction and the purchase of the farm in a good faith sale, the defendant was not able to say he was joking since his conduct would lead a reasonable person into believing the agreement was valid. Agree/Disagree I agree with the court ruling in this case, due to the defendant stating that he felt that the contract was not valid because of his intention regarding the offer of the agreement. If the defendant had said he felt the contract was not valid due to his lack of capacity to understand what he was signing, I may have agreed with his defense. However, the fact that he was able to understand what he was saying was enough to defend himself saying he was only joking, it is reasonable that the plaintiff would believe the contract to be valid. The setting