Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

24/7 Support


Assignment Help

BUS 206-6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer

Jul 24, 2023

Module Six Case Analysis Guidelines and Rubric


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 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.


Read the Lucy v. Zehmer case summary in the “Elements of the Offer” section of Chapter 14 in your textbook, and analyze the case in relation to contract law.

Specifically, you must address the following rubric 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 Submission

Submit your case analysis as a Word document. Write a 1- to 2-paragraph response for each of the 4 rubric criteria. Sources should be cited according to APA style. 

6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer

The contractual element:

The contractual element Zehmer contended was missing that, being the defendant in this case, Zehmer mentions that the contract to sell his and to plaintiff Lucy was done on a note of joke. Thus, the plaintiff enforced certiorari against the defendant, as Zehmer mentions that he just joked about his claim. Thus, here, the contractual element shall be implemented based on the rule of the law. While this measures that if a party, to a contract, has a reasonable belief based on the other party, that the requisite which is intended is believed to enter an agreement when he is not even agreeing, while the contract still has to be enforced, based on the contractual element. Thus, the suit Lucy made against Zehmer and his wife for performing a contract requires to be a letter that conveys about the farm. Thus, plaintiff Lucy mentions that the stated price of the tract of land contained 471.6 acres of land, with an amount of $50,000 ( 2021). Contradiction to this evidence has been seen, in order to show that Zehmer’s contention is based on his drunken statute while signing a contract while making a valid contract. Thus, Lucy, mentioned that though he was drunken, still he was able to comprehend, the nature as well as the consequences of the instrument that he executed.

Summarization of the court ruling:

 As explained in the LexisNexis brief, stating about the reason to rule is based on the mental assent of the parties which is not based on the requisition for forming a contract. On the other hand, in the case of the words or in other acts of one of the parties has to have a reasonable meaning so that this case can be undisclosed with an intention with an immaterial except based on an unreasonable meaning which is mainly attached with the manifestation to the parties which are unknown.

Thus, the court held out the decision that the defendant is true to its intent while agreeing to sell their farm. As the court ruling stated that the plaintiff has a reason to sue to writ because the Defendant and his wife’s performance of the contract is valid. On the other hand, Defendant as he is mentioning it as a joke, has no value, because, the defendant, in this case, Zehmer, narrated about the plot of land, that contained 471.6 acres of land area with a cost of $50, 000. Therefore, the court in the conclusion mentioned that intent to agree to sell their farm is not determinative as per the words. Therefore, action is based on the warranties of the reasonable person, with the belief of the contract intended ( 2021). Hence, under certain objectives, the theory of Contract, based on the reason of the plaintiff here, the suit by Lucy, is believed in the performance of sale, which is a serious business transaction. However, the court mentions about the defendant, Zehmer was not that drunk, and he could not even realize his deeds.

Agree with the ruling:

I agree with the court ruling, because, the court gave out its vision as per the evidence and the forensic reports made by the plaintiff and the suit to the case. I agree with this case because I have learned from the facts that the defendant and the plaintiff stated together with the defendant’s wife before Christmas. Thus, the defendant told about his acre of land, and its amount of sale, at $50.000. thus, this made Lucy, the plaintiff, agree to purchase the plot of the land while offering $5 in order to ensure a bargain, which Defendant refused. Apart from this, I trust the court ruling, because, the waitress also mentioned that they even testified to the defendant saying it was a joke. Thus, the plaintiff put up half of the money from her brother. Therefore, the defendant’s attorney spoked that he was that drunk ( 1954).

Moreover, the court took the right decision based on the case, that the defendant’s intent was making an agreement. Hence, the only focus was on the plaintiff Lucy. Thus, the court here is actually accelerating from the moving requisition, which is a “meeting of the minds”, which is the standard, followed for a valid contract.  

Personal Experience

Summarising my own mistake of entering into a contract with a friend. Hence, with the involvement of Internet technologies these days, I have been discussing starting a real estate business with a friend. Thus, he then over WhatsApp, gives me an address in order to build a good career in this field, so I went on with this idea in order to build my business. Thus, the contract element which was been expressed through this trap was under a valid offer based on my acceptance. Thus, we kept on talking, as he said about my investment based on two policies, which are short and long-term policies so that I can develop a proper business. Thus, I opt for the long term, which in terms I have to pay an amount of $80,000 in order to purchase a plot of 400 acres. Thus, I tried to offer him $400 at the initial stage because of the rest of the amount I have to take as a loan from the bank. Thus, he did not allow the same and asked me to make a payment of half of the amount. Though I made a half payment while taking a rapid loan, the man, Mr. Smith, is still not showing me the plot of land and what has he done with the amount paid. Therefore, I took the decision in a hurry, while my contract lacked adequate consideration and mutual trust.  

References: (2021). Lucy v. Zehmer. Retrieved from [Retrieved on 2nd December, 2021]

Law. (1954). Lucy v. Zehmer. Retrieved from [Retrieved on 1st December, 2021] (2021). Lucy v. Zehmer – 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954). Retrieved from [Retrieved on 2nd December,2021] 

Stuck on Any Question

Our best expert will help you with the answer of your question with best explanation.