• Home
  • Southern New Hampshire University
  • Business Law I BUS206
  • Business Law I Case Analysis

Business Law I Case Analysis

6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer Department of Business, Southern New Hampshire University BUS-206: Business Law I 6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, the contractual element that Zehmer contended was missing was intent. Zehmer and Lucy spent an evening drinking and holding casual conversation. During this time, the sale of Zehmer's property had become the topic of conversation leading to a bet that Zehmer would not sell the property for $50,000. Zehmer countered Lucy with his own bet that Lucy would not pay the $50,000 for the property. This led to a contract being developed, which both parties agreed to, and the evening ended. Lucy would later attempt to enforce the contract, but Zehmer argued that he was merely joking and was not interested in selling the property. Intent was the key to the ruling made for this case as the courts would only be concerned with Zehmer's "outward manifestations of intent and not internal thought processes" (Kubasek, N.K., et al., 2020). This means that regardless of Zehmer's argument being that the pair were drinking and his thoughts of jest, the contract that the two parties agreed upon would become a legally binding document. The court ruling for this case was originally in Zehmer's (defendant) favor, but Lucy (plaintiff) had appealed the ruling and it was overturned in Lucy's favor. Lucy argued that regardless of the alcohol consumed and the jest manner that Zehmer presented, Lucy felt the two parties had entered a serious business transaction and felt that he was just in holding Zehmer to the contract. I am undecided on my agreement or disagreement with the ruling on this case. In Zehmer's defense, the pair were consuming alcohol and I feel that this case could lack capacity due to impairment. In Lucy's defense, the pair both made their proposals for the contract and made their intentions clear. Zehmer's jest behavior was not made clear to Lucy, and I feel they were just in their appeal against the ruling. I have not personally been in a scenario where I felt I was entering a contract that I did not think was binding. Based on the reading this week, and from other resources in the course, I now understand what can be considered binding. I will have the knowledge to approach these situations and understand how I can be held accountable to my actions and what can be expected of me if I make agreements with another party.