lecture notes ch. 11

Lecture notes ch 11 - Chapter 11 Title:BusLawSeal.eps Creator:Adobe Illustrator(R)13.0 Preview:ThisEPS picturewasnotsaved withapreview(TIFFor

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 11 Agreement Chapter Outline I. Requirements of the Offer An offer is a promise to do or refrain from doing some specified thing in the future.  The  elements necessary for an effective offer are: (1) a serious intent by the offeror; (2) reasonably  certain, or definite, terms (so that they can be ascertained by the parties and a court); and (3)  communication of the offer to the offeree. A. I NTENTION Serious intent is determined by what a reasonable person in the offeree’s position would  conclude the offeror’s words and actions meant. Offers made in obvious anger, jest, or  undue excitement do not meet the test.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
C ASE S YNOPSIS Case 11.1: Lucy v. Zehmer For eight years, W. O. Lucy had been anxious to buy the Ferguson Farm from J. C. Zehmer, whom  he’d known for at least fifteen years.  One night, Lucy said, “I bet you wouldn’t take $50,000 for that  place.”  Zehmer replied, “Yes, I would too; you wouldn’t give fifty.”  Throughout the evening, the parties  drank whiskey and talked.  Eventually, Zehmer wrote out an agreement to the effect that he and Mrs.  Zehmer agreed to sell the farm to Lucy for $50,000.  Lucy sued Zehmer to go through with the sale.  Zehmer argued that he had been drunk and that the offer had been made in jest and hence was  unenforceable.  The trial court agreed.  Lucy appealed. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed.  The Zehmers were ordered to carry through with the sale.  Noting that Lucy attempted to testify in detail as to what was said and done the night of the transaction,  the court concluded that “Zehmer was not intoxicated to the extent of being unable to comprehend the  nature and consequences of the instrument he executed, and hence that instrument is not to be in- validated on that ground.”  That execution of the agreement was a serious business transaction the court  found evidenced by a number of circumstances, including discussion of the contract for forty minutes or  more before it was signed, its rewriting to reflect Mrs. Zehmer’s interest, discussion of what was to be  included in the sale, provision for examination of title, completeness of the instrument, and Lucy’s taking  possession without Zehmer’s request that he give it back. .................................................................................................................................................. Notes and Questions You might want to review this case when discussing intoxication and contractual capacity.   The  heart of the decision in this case appears to be whether Zehmer understood the nature of what was  happening.  The court believed that the record showed he did.   What made the court believe that Zehmer was not drunk?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/05/2011 for the course LAW 3000 taught by Professor Ms.zarac.sette during the Spring '11 term at Hawaii Pacific.

Page1 / 26

Lecture notes ch 11 - Chapter 11 Title:BusLawSeal.eps Creator:Adobe Illustrator(R)13.0 Preview:ThisEPS picturewasnotsaved withapreview(TIFFor

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online