No More Worries!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Paper Formatting

  • Double or single-spaced
  • 1-inch margin
  • 12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
  • 300 words per page

No Lateness!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Our Guarantees

image

  • Free Unlimited revisions
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Money Return guarantee
  • Plagiarism Free Writing

Case Analysis: Lucy V. Zehmer

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.

find the cost of your paper

Sample Answer

 

 

 

Lucy v. Zehmer: A Contractual Analysis

Based on the information you provided, let’s analyze the Lucy v. Zehmer case through the lens of contract law:

Missing Contractual Element:

Zehmer argued that the essential element of mutual assent was missing. He claimed he was joking and never intended to create a binding contract.

Court Ruling and Rationale:

The court ruled in favor of Lucy. Their reasoning centered on the principle of objective manifestation of intent. Even if Zehmer didn’t have the subjective intention to sell the farm, his words and actions (signing the agreement) led a reasonable person to believe he did.

Full Answer Section

 

 

 

 

Agreeing with the Ruling:

I agree with the court’s ruling. Contracts rely on predictability and enforceability. In this case, Zehmer’s outward behavior (signing the agreement) conveyed a clear offer, and Lucy, as a reasonable person, acted upon it by offering money. Zehmer cannot claim he was merely joking after the fact, especially when the seriousness of the situation (selling a farm) is considered.

Personal Contract Experience:

(Replace this section with a personal experience of entering a non-binding contract. However, I can’t provide a personal experience).

Here’s a hypothetical example:

Imagine shaking hands with a friend after agreeing to help them move in exchange for pizza. While this might not be a formal written contract, the elements of offer (help with moving), acceptance (handshake agreement), and consideration (pizza) are arguably present. However, depending on the specific circumstances (e.g., joking about the pizza), enforceability through legal channels might be difficult.

Conclusion:

Lucy v. Zehmer highlights the importance of clear communication and understanding the legal implications of one’s actions. While subjective intent plays a role, objective manifestations of agreement hold significant weight in contract law.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

[ordersys_quote]

Satisfaction Guaranteed

image

  • Research Paper Writing
  • Essay Writing
  • Dissertation Writing
  • Thesis Writing

Why Choose Us

image

  • Money Return guarantee
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Written by Professionals
  • Paper Written from Scratch
  • Timely Deliveries
  • Free Amendments