H ADM 3387 11-11 -09 - HA 3387 Hospitality Law 11/11/09...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
HA 3387 Hospitality Law 11/11/09 Intro 4 cases, first two are easy, second two are hard Lucy Lucy v. Zimmer Zimmer Facts At a bar, wrote a contract on the cocktail napkin for the farm for $50K Comes the next day and wants Issues 1 – What about a joke? o Answer: Manifest intentions—what the fly on the wall hears is what matters; it doesn’t matter what you thought (internal intentions), only what you said (manifest intentions) o Theory: He was joking in the case, that’s clear; so why do we enforce the contract? Every contract has a way out—anyone could say it was a joke. 2 – What if a person was drunk? o Court found that he wasn’t wasted, because he offered all the details; from this conclusion, we can summarize that intoxication is a possible defense. If the court knew it wasn’t relevant, they wouldn’t have asked. This case doesn’t win because he didn’t meet the defence, not because it wasn’t a defence Notes Concept called meeting of the minds o In order to a contract, both sides need to be talking about the same thing o So is a joke a way out? City of Everett
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 02/02/2012 for the course HADM 3387 at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 3

H ADM 3387 11-11 -09 - HA 3387 Hospitality Law 11/11/09...

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