6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v Zehmer Michele Heite Southern New Hampshire University Bus 206: Business Law Laycie Ewing 10/08/2023
In the case of Lucy v Zehmer, 196 VA. 493, 84 S.E.2D 516 (1954), two friends drank whiskey and during the course of their conversation, they placed bets on whether the other would accept/purchase the Ferguson Farm for $50,000. Lucy had shown interest in purchasing the property for a minimum of eight years and was successful in having Zehmer draw up a contract for the sale of the Ferguson Farm for $50,000. When Lucy approached Zehmer to enforce the contract, Zehmer refused, stating that he was intoxicated and was never serious about selling the property (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 347). Zehmer contested that since he took the bet and contract as a joke, intent was never present. Intent is the first element of a contractual offer; as stated by Kubasek et al., "The offeror must show intent to be bound by the offeree's acceptance" (2020, p. 347). When the case originally went to trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, Zehmer, however, the plaintiff, Lucy, appealed the ruling. Once the case returned to court, both parties were required to provide evidence and their version of the events that took place regarding Ferguson Farm. Upon hearing the details, the court reversed the ruling and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Lucy. Based on the evidence provided, while Zehmer claimed that he meant it as a joke, Lucy believed that Zehmer had the intent to sell the property. Zehmer did not indicate, prior to Lucy attempting to enforce the contract, that he was not serious. Lucy believed that the contract was written in good faith and went as far as to give Zehmer $5 to seal the deal as the full purchase was not to take place at that time. The Zehmer's did testify that when Zehmer asked his wife to sign the contract, he whispered that it was a joke but did so intentionally so that Lucy would not hear him. Lucy was able to prove that he believed the contract was valid, enforceable, and made in good faith, so the court ruled in favor of Lucy (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 348).
I agree with the court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Lucy. While the conversation may have begun in a jocular manner, by making bets, it stopped being a joke when a contract was drafted. Although alcohol was involved, both parties were of sound mind to enter into a contract. The evidence provided shows that both the offer and the acceptance were made in good faith; Lucy gave $5 to Zehmer to show his intent to continue the process. When I returned home from deployment, a good friend offered a spare room for me to live in, along with full access of the house. Our agreement was purely verbal, and there were few stipulations other than it would be a monthly rental, in case either of