Katherine 6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy V. Zehmer Nagy · Identify the contractual element Zehmer contended was missing. Zehmer thought the sale was a joke. He believed that he had been drinking and Lucy would not believe that he was actually selling the farm. He believed that she would not pay the $50,000. Zehmer refused to complete the sale because he was drunk and the agreement to sell the property had been made in jest. · Summarize the court ruling and explain the reason for the ruling. The court ruling was reversed in favor of the plaintiff. There was no fraud, no misrepresentation, no sharp practice, and no dealing between unequal parties. The court ruled that Zehmer was not intoxicated to the point of being unable to comprehend the nature of what he was agreeing to. The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formal of a contract. · Agree or disagree with the ruling, and include a rationale to support your ideas. I agree with the ruling because the established contract had the four essential elements of a contract: acceptance, consideration, contractual capacity, and legal object (Kubasek
Nagy Katherine et al., 2020). Each party freely entered the contact through proper means and there was a paper contract written up and signed. The contract had a promise in exchange of land of money. Zehmer had enough mental compacity to agree to the verbal arrangement they had made to then go and make a written contact and that should be followed. Even with drinking involved they still both they still had the understanding of what they were agreeing to and the contact should be upheld. · Summarize a personal experience in which you entered into a contract that you did not think of as a binding contract at the time. Consider which elements of a contract were in place and which were missing. An experience I can think of is when I was in nursing school a few years ago I got sick and had to miss some classes and clinical days. The nursing administration had me sign a paper stating that I could continue the class next semester. When next semester came around they told me I could now longer cotinine talking the class or continue in the program. I tried to fight the ruling they made but the nursing administration would not change their opinion.
Nagy Katherine References Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., & Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic Business Law. McGraw-Hill Education.