assignment 3 blaw-2 - Michael Reber B Law 210.8 Assignment...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Michael Reber B Law 210.8 Assignment # 3 Lucy v. Zehmer , 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E. 2d 516 (1954). Case Facts: A night in December of 1952, Zehmer, after having a few too many drinks, composed a contract on a restaurant bill statement agreed to sell his farm to Lucy at the sum of $50,000. Zehmer insisted that it was all in good fun and stated that it was a joke. However Lucy thought that this was a serious affair. Zehmer also stated that he had been under the influence and that their contract has no legitimacy what so ever. Lucy then filed a suit against Zehmer for contract breach. Case Proceedings: Lucy filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Zehmer, in a lower state court of Virginia. The court ruled in favor of Zehmer, however the case was then taken to the supreme court Issue at hand: is a contract enforceable if the creator is under the influence or joking. Holding: Yes Reasoning: Lucy and Zehmer had been in discussion about the sale for a good length of time, there had also been many steps taken in the process by Lucy, the second draft, Zehmer’s signature, exam of title, and memo. All of these steps tell us that Zehmer believed that to be involved in a business transaction not of a joking manner. The claim of drunkenness, made by Zehmer was not convincing, the court also found that he wasn’t too intoxicated. The case showed that, its was a good deal and showed no basis for specific performance. The ruling was that just because Zehmer had not mentally agreed to the deal, his demeanor signified to Lucy, in a manner that the transaction wasn’t a joke, and Lucy had no knowledge of Zehmer’s mental judgment. From this Zehmer lost the case to Lucy. Final Decision: The plaintiff, Lucy, was victorious and awarded the farm for the $50,000 transaction which they settled in December of 1952 Yale Diagnostic v. Estate of Harun Fountain, 267 Conn. 351, 838 (A. 2 nd 179). Case Facts: In 1996 Fountain was shot in the back of the head at close range. From this Fountain suffered a loss of his right eye, along with extensive lifesaving medical services, this summed a total of $17,694. The plaintiff sent the bill to Fountains mother, Tucker, but the bill was left unpaid. Then the plaintiff obtained a collection judgment against her.
Image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern