Daniel Calana
4/11/2021
Module Six Case Analysis
The contractual element Zehmer contended that was missing was the intent element. Has it
states in the chapter "The offeror must show intent to be bound by the offeree's acceptance."
Courts only are focused on the party's outward manifestations of intent and not the internal
thought process. In the process Zehmer said that they were drinking and that they were both in an
intoxicated state when they were making the deal and the contract.
The court ruled in favor of Lucy because at the time the contract with signatures of all parties
involved and they also disclosed that some drinking by the two parties but not to an extent that
they were unable to understand fully of what they were doing. There was no fraud, no
misrepresentation, no sharp practice, and no dealing between unequal parties. Has the farm had
been bought for 11,000 dollars and then with the assessed taxation of 6,300 dollars. The purchase
price was 50,000 dollars which Zehmer admitted that it was a good price
I do have to agree with the ruling because Zehmer made no intentions on letting Lucy know
that he was only jesting when he made the agreement to sell the farm. Zehmer only told his wife
in secret which does not help his case because he should have been honest with Lucy from the
beginning and if he said that allegedly they were both intoxicated when making the deal the
contract would not have had everything it needed for it to be a valid agreement. Zehmer was in
fact in a right state of mind when he made the contract and signed it alongside his wife in front of
Lucy.
When I was younger me and my sister would always play games together and we would
always bet each other that we could not do something, or we were always competing against
each other. One day we were playing around, and I bet my sister that she did not have it in her to
win a game of monopoly with me which by the way she hated playing. I told her that if she
defeated me in Monopoly, I would do all her chores for a whole month and if I won, she would
have to do all my chores for a month. We then grabbed a piece of paper and signed each of our
names and declared what the contract was for. I was taking it has a joke and not taking it
seriously. Anyways she defeated me in monopoly I went to my mom and grandma and informed
them on what happened, and they told me that I signed a contract, so I had to do good on my
word and I ended up doing chores for me and my sister for a whole month. I would say what was
missing was that I did not inform to my sister that I was joking around.
References
Nancy Kubasek. 2020. Dynamic Business Law