1 BUS 206 CASE ANAYLSIS BUS 206 Case Analysis Ancelot Augustin Southern New Hampshire University February 12, 2024
2 BUS 206 CASE ANAYLSIS The elements of a contract are an agreement, consideration, contractual capacity, and legal object (Kubasek et al., 2023). Kubasek et al. (2023) state that in an agreement, there must be an offer and acceptance; consideration is what each party receives out of the agreement; contractual capacity refers to the ability to agree; the legal object means the contract must not be illegal or pose a threat to public policy, it must enforceable. After reading the Lucy vs. Zehmer case summary, the contractual element Zehmer contended was missing was the intent. Zehmer argued that he did not intend to enter into a severe agreement; he was joking while drinking when he and Lucy discussed selling his farm and allegedly signed a contract. Zehmer believes intent was invalid because he was jesting and inebriated during the discussion of part of a sale of his farm for 50,000. However, Kubasek (2023) stated that "the offeror must show intent to be bound by the offeree's acceptance" (Kubasek et al., 2023, p. 351). Furthermore, "the courts are concerned only with the party's outward manifestations of intent, not internal thought process" (Kubasek et al., 2023). The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Lucy. In summary, the judge ruled that Lucy did not understand that it was a joke, but believed the contract was a binding business transaction between himself and Zehmers. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Lucy thought it was a good-faith business purchase of a farm (Kubasek et al., 2023). "The law imputes to a person intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts." The act shows that Zehmer did not indicate to Lucy during the execution of the contract that it was a joke. Both men signed the agreement, which Zehmer put on the counter in front of Lucy, who picked it up and placed it in his pocket. Justice Buchanan concluded that Lucy had all the elements of a contract, which was valid.
3 BUS 206 CASE ANAYLSIS Although Zehmer contended they were drunk, Justice Buchanan ruled they knew what was happening. The ruling was correct. Although both men drank whiskey while discussing the property, Zehmer was not as inebriated as he claimed. He understood what he was agreeing to. I believe Zehmer had seller's remorse the next day. Zehmer probably hoped Lucy did not remember the conversation or contract they had signed the night before. In his ruling, Justice Buchanan ruled that Zehmer could not just say he was joking in this matter. His words, actions, and behavior lead Lucy to believe there is a clear manifestation of an agreement, meaning the contract is valid. This case has some familiar aspects of a personal situation. My mother-in-law offered her granddaughter her old Lincoln Continental that she was not driving. The granddaughter asked her if she was serious, and she agreed. Although there was no signed