6-1 Case Analysis - Lucy v

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

206

Subject

Accounting

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by ProfessorDolphinMaster864

Report
6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer Name: Courtney Johnson Student ID: 2745555 Program(s) of Study (Major): Accounting w/conc in Forensic Accounting/Fraud Exam Anticipated Graduation Date: June 2028 Identify the contractual element Zehmer contended was missing. The contractual element that Zehmer contended was missing is intent. Zehmer had argued that he was drunk that night and had been joking so the agreement to sell the property was made in jest. “The offeror must show intent to be bound by the offeree’s acceptance” (Kubasek, 2023). Since this is the first element of an agreement and Zehmer believes that he was drunk and joking, the intent is not serious on his end. Summarize the court ruling and explain the reason for the ruling. The court ruled in favor of Lucy. Justice Buchanan states that even though both parties were drinking, they were not intoxicated to the point where they did not know what they were doing. Justice Buchanan mentions the point that in the field of contract, and everywhere else, “We must look to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention” (Kubasek, 2023). This implies that an individual cannot claim they were merely jesting if their behavior and words would lead a reasonable person to believe that the agreement was genuine. Justice Buchanan ruled that regardless if the writing was signed as
genuine offer from Lucy and a serious acceptance by Zehmer, or it was a genuine offer by Lucy and a “joking” acceptance by Zehmer, it was a binding contract between them. Agree or disagree with the ruling, and include a rationale to support your ideas. “Sometimes an offeror may try to avoid being bound to a contract by later claiming she was only joking when she made the offer, but the courts are not interested in her hidden intent” (Kubasek, 2023). This statement makes a good point as to why I agree with the court's ruling in favor of Lucy. Contracts tend to be a binding agreement between people so if one party does not have any serious intentions then they need to make it clear to the other party involved that they are not serious and that they are joking, or they will risk being held accountable. If Zehmer was telling the truth about not being serious about selling, then he never should have signed the contract while they were drinking because they were not to the extent that they did not know what was going on. Entering a courtroom and claiming it was a joke or lack of intent does not exempt someone from the expectation that the contract will remain legally binding. 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. There is a long backstory to this and at that moment in time I did not realize how serious it was, but I sure did after the fact. A few years ago, I had to bail my ex-boyfriend out of jail, and I did not have the full amount of money that was required so I made an agreement with the bail bonds office to put a lien against my car and I had to make payments every 2 weeks until it was paid off and then the lien would be taken off when he shows up to court. This would be the first element,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help