Assignment 3 blaw-2 - 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

Info iconThis 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. The debts, however, were emancipated because of a federal bankruptcy court. When
Background image of page 1

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

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

This note was uploaded on 01/30/2012 for the course B LAW 210 taught by Professor Mumford during the Spring '07 term at Washington State University .

Page1 / 4

Assignment 3 blaw-2 - 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

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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