Lucy v. Zehmer Case Analysis: Serious Intent and Enforceable Contracts
Missing Contractual Element Identified by Zehmer
In Lucy v. Zehmer (1954), Zehmer insisted that the fact of alcohol intoxication was a solid reason to appeal to the lack of serious intent of the offerer to be bound by the contract. He insisted it could not be a legal agreement as he did not seriously intend to sell his farm to Lucy. Thus, he believed he had a right to revoke it after signing the contract.
Court Ruling and Rationale
The court ruled that the contract is enforceable if the unseriousness of the party’s intent is not expressed in a way that the other party can understand (Lucy v. Zehmer, 1954). Therefore, even an offer suggested in jest may be valid if the offeree is not able to realize that the contract is not legitimate and should be terminated by default. Thus, this case outlined the conditions of a legal agreement that were previously less clear.
Agreement with the Ruling
In my opinion, this ruling is justifiable for common use as it creates a condition where the offerer cannot use the reason of not being serious as an excuse to revoke the offer. Serious intent is measured by how it is communicated, so it should not be faked in an environment that does not give any signs of frivolity. Even more recent cases like Rowland v. Sandy Morris Financial LLC (2021) use this precedent to define a contract agreement and prevent misunderstanding between parties. Therefore, these limits to the definition of an enforceable contract are still relevant.
Personal Experience with a Perceived Non-Binding Contract
Two years ago, I signed a contract with my phone company, which offered a cheaper plan at the time. However, after several months, they increased the prices, which forced me to search for a different service offer. This led to a several-month-long termination process described in the contract that I needed to read more thoroughly. All the elements were there: the intent, the terms, and the communication, but my understanding of the process could have been improved.
References
Lucy v. Zehmer. (1954). Justia Law. Web.
Rowland v. Sandy Morris Financial LLC, no. 20-1187 (2021). Justia Law. Web.