OverviewIn the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, Zehmer spent the night drinking with his friend Lucy. During...

Question

OverviewIn the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, Zehmer spent the night drinking with his friend Lucy. During the evening, a piece of paper was signed whereby Zehmer agreed to sell his farm to Lucy. In this assignment, you will review the full case study in your textbook, analyze the contractual elements and ruling, and indicate whether you agree with the ruling.PromptRead the Lucy v. Zehmer case summary in the “Elements of the Offer” section of Chapter 14 in your textbook, and the analyze the case in relation to contract law.Specifically, you must address the following ruic criteria:· Identify the contractual element Zehmer contended was missing.· Summarize the court ruling and explain the reason for the ruling.· Agree or disagree with the ruling, and include a rationale to support your ideas.· Summarize a personal experience in which you entered into a contract that you did not think of as a binding contract at the time. Consider which elements of a contract were in place and which were missing.Guidelines for SubmissionSubmit your case analysis as a Word document. Write a 1- to 2-paragraph response for each of the 4 ruic criteria. Sources should be cited according to APA style.

Tarun · Accepted Answer

Q1] Identify the contractual element Zehmer contended was missing. 
Ans.] 	Zehmer contended that the element of acceptance was missing, and in turn, the legality of the contract was missing too. While Lucy did make an offer, it was believed by Zehmer to have been made in jest, thus he contends that the acceptance he gave was in jest too. The offer was present, so was the consideration and capacity of Lucy, but the awareness and acceptance of Zehmer was missing. He did not intend this to be serious as he alleges that both of the parties were drinking and intoxicated, so any acceptance that he gave was under the influence and should be nullified. This, he alleges, leads to the element of legality also not being fulfilled. 
Q2] Summarize the court ruling and explain the reason for the ruling.
Ans.] 	The court had upheld the legality of the contract and ruled in favour of Lucy. This meant that the contract was binding and legally sound. The court stated, “The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party.

Overview In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, Zehmer spent the night drinking with his friend Lucy. During the evening, a piece of paper was signed whereby Zehmer agreed to sell his farm to Lucy. In this...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment