Lucy v. Zehmer
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 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.
Prompt
Read 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 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 4 rubric criteria. Sources should be cited according to APA style.
Module Six Case Analysis Rubric |
|||||
| Criteria | Exemplary (100%) | Proficient (85%) | Needs Improvement (55%) | Not Evident (0%) | Value |
| Contractual Element | Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, or sophisticated manner | Accurately identifies the contractual element Zehmer argued was missing | Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include accurately identifying the contractual element Zehmer was missing | Does not attempt criterion | 20 |
| Court Ruling and Reasoning | Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, or sophisticated manner | Summarizes the court’s ruling and accurately explains the reason for the ruling | Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include a more complete summary of the court’s ruling or additional support explaining the reason for the ruling | Does not attempt criterion | 20 |
| Agree or Disagree | Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, or sophisticated manner | Indicates agreement or disagreement with the ruling and provides a cogent description of the reasoning behind the ruling | Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include a clearer statement of agreement or disagreement or a more logical description of the reasoning behind the ruling | Does not attempt criterion | 25 |
| Entering Into a Contract | Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, or sophisticated manner | Summarizes an experience with a personal contract and considers which elements of the contract were in place and which were missing | Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include a more complete explanation of the contract or a more accurate identification of the contract elements that were in place or missing | Does not attempt criterion | 25 |
| Articulation of Response | Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, sophisticated, or creative manner | Clearly conveys meaning with correct grammar, sentence structure, and spelling, demonstrating an understanding of audience and purpose | Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors in grammar, sentence structure, and spelling, negatively impacting readability | Submission has critical errors in grammar, sentence structure, and spelling, preventing understanding of ideas | 5 |
| Citations and Attributions | Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with few or no minor errors | Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with consistent minor errors | Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with major errors | Does not use citations for ideas requiring attribution | 5 |
| Total: | 100% | ||||
https://aplusnursingpapers.com/orders/ordernow
Order
Lucy v. Zehmer
The Lucy v. Zehmer case is a well-known contract law case in which the courts held that an offer does not need to be communicated directly to the offeree for it to be considered valid. Instead, the court found that an offer can be communicated indirectly, through actions or gestures, as long as these actions or gestures make it clear that the person intends to make an offer. This case is often cited when discussing the element of communication in Offer formation. In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, the court was confronted with the question of whether or not a contract had been formed between the parties (Somech, 2018). The court looked at several factors in order to determine whether or not there was a contract, including the intention of the parties, and whether there was an offer and acceptance. The case involved two farmers, Lucy and Zehmer. Zehmer owned a farm that Lucy wanted to buy. One night, after drinking some whiskey, Lucy and Zehmer agreed on a price for the farm. The next day, when sober, Lucy offered to pay Zehmer what they had agreed upon from the night before.
Zehmer contended that, when he signed the contract, he did not intend to sell the property to Lucy. He further argued that his mental state was impaired at the time of signing due to alcohol consumption and that, as a result, he did not knowingly enter into a contract to sell the property. The trial court found in favor of Lucy, and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the decision (Somech, 2018). The missing contractual element was an intent to sell on Zehmer’s part. Since he did not have this intent at the time of signing, it was determined that there was no valid contract in place. The court ruled in favor of Lucy, stating that Zehmer’s signature on the contract constituted an offer which Lucy accepted by performing all of the terms of the sale.
The reason for the ruling was that there was no evidence that Zehmer signed the contract. There are several key elements to any offer that must be met in order for it to be considered valid. In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, the court ruled that an offer must be clear and unambiguous in order to be binding. I agree with this ruling, as it provides protection for both parties involved in a potential contract. If an offer is unclear or ambiguous, it can lead to misunderstanding and potential litigation down the road. By requiring offers to be clear and unambiguous, the court is helping to ensure that both parties are truly aware of what they are agreeing to. This vetting process can help avoid costly mistakes and legal battles down the line.
I once went to a psychic who told me that in order to keep the reading accurate, I had to agree not to tell anyone about what she said. She said that if I did, it would invalidate the reading. At the time, I thought it was just a little strange but harmless enough, so I agreed. Well, a few weeks later I started dating someone and things were going great…until he broke up with me out of nowhere. One of the first things I did was call up my psychic to ask why this happened, only to be reminded of my “contract” not to tell anyone. Needless to say, I was pretty upset at having such seemingly damning evidence against me that could have easily been foreseen. Some of the elements of a contract that were in place and which were missing not revealing information to the third parties.
Reference
Somech, O. (2018). What a Peppercorn Can Do: The Effect of Considerations on the Subjective Attractiveness of Objects. Miss. LJ, 88, 487. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mislj88&div=29&id=&page=