Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Lucy v. Zehmer | 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954)
For an enforceable contract to arise, both parties must manifest an intention to be bound by the same terms. This is called mutual assent. Most commonly, mutual assent arises by offer and acceptance. One party offers to enter a contract upon definite terms, and the other party accepts, creating a binding contract. In Lucy versus Zehmer, the Virginia Supreme Court confronted a case where a party’s words and actions indicated assent, but in his mind, he thought quite the opposite.
Zehmer owned Ferguson Farm, a large parcel in Virginia. In the 1940s, a man named W. O. Lucy sought to buy the farm, but Zehmer refused to sell. In late December 1952, while drinking with Zehmer at a restaurant, Lucy again offered to buy the farm. This time, he offered $50,000. The two visibly intoxicated men discussed the transaction for forty minutes or more. Finally, due to Lucy’s prodding, Zehmer scribbled the following language on some scrap paper, quote:
“We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer,” unquote.
At Lucy’s insistence, Zehmer had used the pronoun we to reference himself and his wife Ida. Also at Lucy’s insistence, Zehmer had included the part about satisfactory title. Then, Zehmer signed the paper. Ida signed the paper, too, but only after Zehmer assured her, out of Lucy’s earshot, that he was joking about selling the farm. But before signing the paper, Zehmer hadn’t told his friend Lucy that he was joking.
The next day, Lucy offered his brother a one-half interest in Ferguson Farm, in exchange for $25,000. The brother agreed. The day after that, Lucy hired a local attorney to conduct a title search on Ferguson Farm. Finding the results satisfactory, Lucy contacted Zehmer to proceed with the sale. Zehmer refused, insisting that the contract was a joke.
Lucy and his brother sued Zehmer and Ida in Virginia state court, seeking to compel the sale of Ferguson Farm, per the terms on the signed paper. In his defense, Zehmer argued that no binding contract existed, because he never subjectively intended to sell Ferguson Farm. Rather, he was just joking around, and the whole discussion was merely idle banter between two drunks.
The trial court found for Zehmer and dismissed the case. Lucy appealed directly to the Virginia Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@squeezeliz]

i wish this included the full results of the case... aka, the final decision made by the supreme court

[@dudetocartman]

I learned about this case in Business Law 9 years ago. If only Zehmer was drunk, the contract would have NOT been enforceable. In order for a contract to be binding, the three rules have to apply: 1) Parties have to be legal age (18 or over), 2) Parties have to be sober, and 3) Parties have to be sane. Unfortunately, Zehmer lost since he wasn't drunk or intoxicated so much to not understand the contract he executed.

[@davidlinehat4657]

We're studying this in contracts now. I think Z wasn't drunk enough! He had been drinking. The problem is, Lucy was drunk enough that Z's wife told Z that he should drive Lucy home. From that, I think the court inferred that Lucy was worse off than Z. (Be careful with your Christmas drinks, folks!) Also, from what I read, the sobriety standard at the time was "intoxicated to the extent of being unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed." It sounds like he'd have to have quite the buzz!

[@dimitrihenriqueoliveira7441]

That's dark. My teacher proposed us this case and I was astonished with the court's decision. I would arrest Lucy for trying to take the farm from a man he knew for almost 15 years, after having a friendly conversation with him in which both drank and laughed together. This just shows us how much absent of God our "justice" is.

[@alexfernandez6621]

What where the result of the appeals court?

[@dudetocartman]

Zehmer lost since he wasn't intoxicated to the point of not being able to comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed.

[@letysolis6794]

@@dudetocartman So he lost his farm? Who can testify that he was not intoxicated to the point of not being able to comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed? They didn't have breathalyzer at that time, No blood was withdrawn.

[@dudetocartman]

⁠​⁠@@letysolis6794Yes, Zehmer lost the farm. From what I remember from learning this case in business law, both parties were at a bar drinking and talking while only having a couple drinks in like a 2 hour window. Because of this, that’s sober enough to understand what the contract was stating. Getting a breathalyzer, urine, or blood wouldn’t matter based on that statement. If it was binge drinking in a shorter time, then a test would be needed. Also, once both parties sign while being old enough, sober, and sane, the contract is valid.

[@timothymattson5369]

What was Lucy's first name?

[@SJ-007]

So, did Lucy never take possession of the farm?

[@ozehmer]

Yes he did. This is my great grandfather. Its pronounced ZEE MER. Lucy was a jerk. My great grandfather owned a huge majority of the land in Dinwiddie county (Mckenney VA) he planned all of this.

[@konulrustamli9642]

@@ozehmer how can we get what was 1st instant court argument?

[@Pikaboo1234]

@@ozehmer Yea, Lucy waited until they were intoxicated. All of it seemed planned! He was no friend!

[@davidlinehat4657]

@@ozehmer That's really cool! It's a very famous case. Many first-year law students study it.