Lucy V Zehmer Case Brief

1954 Virginia Supreme Court example regarding contract language

Lucy 5. Zehmer

Court	Supreme Courtroom of Virginia
Full instance proper name	W. O. Lucy and J. C. Lucy v. A. H. Zehmer and Ida S. Zehmer
Decided	Nov 22, 1954
Citation(s)	196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.second 516; 1954 Va. LEXIS 244
Case history
Prior action(southward)	Appeal from a decree of the Excursion Court of Dinwiddie Canton. Hon J. G. Jefferson, Jr., approximate presiding.
Holding
A person cannot set upward that he was merely jesting when his conduct and words would warrant a reasonable person in assertive that he intended a real understanding.
Court membership
Main judge	John W. Eggleston
Associate judges	Kennon C. Whittle, Willis D. Miller, Lemuel F. Smith, Archibald C. Buchanan
Case opinions
Majority	Buchanan, joined by unanimous

Lucy v. Zehmer , 196 Va. 493; 84 South.East.2d 516 (1954) was a court example in the Supreme Court of Virginia about the enforceability of a contract based on outward appearance of the understanding. It is commonly taught in get-go-year contract police classes at American law schools.

Facts [edit]

Defendant A. H. Zehmer and his married woman, Ida S. Zehmer, owned a tract of state of 471.6 acres (190.8 ha) in Dinwiddie County, Virginia, known as the Ferguson Subcontract. Plaintiff W. O. Lucy had known Zehmer for many years and had previously expressed involvement in purchasing the farm. Some years prior to the instance, Zehmer had orally agreed to sell the farm to Lucy simply later reconsidered and declined to complete the sale.

On December 20, 1952, Lucy entered the restaurant owned by Zehmer with a bottle of whiskey in his mitt. Lucy and Zehmer consumed a significant quantity of distilled spirits and discussed the possible sale of the farm. Zehmer wrote on the back of the restaurant'southward receipt stating, "Nosotros hereby concur to sell to Due west. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, championship satisfactory to buyer". The note was signed by Zehmer and his wife.

Zehmer after alleged that his wife had initially balked at his request that she sign the musical instrument, but she relented when Zehmer assured her that his intent to sell the farm was simply in jest.

The next day, Lucy spoke to his brother, J.C. Lucy, about the purchase, and he hired an chaser to examine the title. Later on the chaser assured Lucy that the title was clear, he wrote a letter to Zehmer asking when he intended to close the deal. In his reply, Zehmer insisted that he had never intended to sell the farm and that the note signed by him and his wife was written in jest, consequent with the jovial temper and drunken camaraderie the parties were sharing that evening.

Zehmer claimed on the witness stand that the circumstances were such that Lucy should have known he was too inebriated to agree to the sale. Depositions were taken, and the decree appealed from was entered. It held that the complainants had failed to plant their right to specific performance, and information technology dismissed their pecker.

Decision [edit]

Archibald C. Buchanan, who served on the Supreme Court of Virginia since 1946,^[1] wrote for the unanimous court determination, holding that the record suggested that Zehmer was not intoxicated to the point of beingness unable to embrace the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed. The circumstances surrounding the transaction were such that Lucy was justified in believing that it was a serious business transaction, rather than a mere jest. On the latter point, Buchanan quoted from the Restatement (Start) of Contracts:

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 only 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.

Buchanan farther held that specific performance was the proper remedy for the plaintiff.

Criticism [edit]

Because the court'south opinion relied on the external acts of the parties and non their intentions, the opinion followed the objective theory of contract germination. Although the case is a mainstay of American legal education, the facts and the accuracy of this theory have been challenged by academic legal commentators.^[two] Specifically, commentators argue that the courtroom failed to accept into account the history of shady deals that Lucy had left in his wake in an effort to buy properties rich in natural resources at unfairly depression prices and then sell them for extremely high profit.

Additionally, the objective method overlooked the fact that Lucy was one of many ambitious middlemen working for Virginia's lurid-and-paper manufacture. Analysis of the historical record of the transaction raises substantial questions almost the objective method's ability to capture relevant factual and contextual groundwork.

References [edit]

^ Barnett, Randy. Contracts: Cases and Doctrine. 4th ed. New York: Aspen, 2008., note, p. 296
^ Barak Richman and Dennis Schmeltzez. "When Money Grew on Trees: Lucy v. Zehmer and Contracting in a Boom Market", Knuckles Law Journal, Book 61, Pg. 1510 (2012)

External links [edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

wikisource:Lucy v. Zehmer Plainly text of decision
Total text opinion in PDF format^{[ permanent dead link ]} from Virginia Polytechnic Establish and Country University^{[ expressionless link ]}
Abbreviated version of case
Entry on ContractsProf blog about 50th anniversary of the decision