2
1.
Zehmer contended that the contractual element missing was the intent. For a contract
to be valid, both parties must have a clear intention to create a legally binding
agreement. Zehmer argued that he was intoxicated and that the agreement was made
in jest, implying that he did not have the serious intention to sell the property,
therefore making the contract invalid.
2.
The court ruled in favor of Lucy, the plaintiff. The court stated that the contract was
enforceable because the agreement, as looked at by a reasonable person, was what
mattered in determining the contract's intent, not the secret. The court found that
Zehmer’s actions, writing and signing the contract, even while he was intoxicated,
would lead a person to believe that he did intend to sell the property.
3.
I agree with the court’s ruling. To ensure fairness in commercial transactions, intent in
contract law is important. If parties could get out of contractual obligations by
claiming they were joking or didn’t mean it, it would create uncertainty and trust in
contractual agreements. Despite Zehmer’s claim of intoxication, he was coherent
enough to draft and sign a contract, which would lead people to believe he did intend
to agree, making the court’s decision to enforce the contract justified.
4.
A personal experience I went through regarding a contract was when my family and I
needed a place to stay. My ex-husband at the time spoke to my uncle and he agreed to
allow us to stay in the in-law apartment of his home. My ex-husband agreed to give
my uncle $1200 a month and a portion of the utilities. I, however, was not a part of
their verbal contracts. We had separated and my uncle had informed me that my ex
had not paid rent for the past three months or any of the utilities. I felt like he should
