1. Lucy v.

Zehmer
196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954)
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
2. Facts:
Welford Ordway Lucy and his brother John Cleveland Lucy the complainants
filed suit against Adrian Hardy Zehmer and his wife Ida S. Zehmer to have
specific performance of a written contract between the parties, in which the
Zehmers agree to sell to W.O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm (471.6 Acres)
complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer,
The record showed the contract had been drafted during a Saturday night
of drinking on December 20, 1952. The contract was drafted; discuss by the
parties for forty minutes or more and even rewriting to because it was first
written in the singular and Lucy wanted Mrs. Zehmer sign it as well. After
the Zehmers sign the contract Lucy put the writing in his pocket and then
offered Zehmer $5 to seal the bargain. Lucy then arranged with his brother
to put up half the money and employed an attorney to examine the title.
Zehmer later told Lucy that that he wasnt going to sell.
The Zehmers contended that no binding contract was ever made between
the parties because 1. The contract was prepared as a bluff/ dare to force
Lucy to admit that he did not have $50,000
2. The contract was never given (delivered) to Lucy. That Lucy had picked it
up off the table.
A.H. Zehmer also claimed that he was high as a Georgia pine, and that
the transaction was just a bunch of two doggoned drunks bluffing to see
who could talk the biggest and say the most. The record however showed
that Zehmer was not intoxicated to the extent of being unable to
comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed
and his counsel conceded that Zehmer was not too drunk to make a valid
contact.
3. Procedural History:
The trial court ruled against the complainants holding that the complainants
had failed to establish their right to specific performance, and dismissing
their bill. That ruling was appeled to Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
4. Issue(s):
Whether the was sufficient evidence showing that the instrument in
question was a valid contract establishing the complainants right to specific
performance on said contract.
5. Rule(s) of Law:
An agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract,
but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the

reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by
a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what
may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind.
6. Holding(s):
Whether the writing signed by the defendants and now sought to be
enforced by the complainants was the result of a serious offer by Lucy and
a serious acceptance by the defendants, or was a serious offer by Lucy and
an acceptance in secret jest by the defendants, in either event it
constituted a binding contract of sale between the parties.
7. Courts Order:
The Court reversed the decree appealed from, stating that the
complainants were entitled to have specific performance of the contract
which they sued on, and ordered the cause remanded for the entry of a
proper decree requiring the defendants to perform the contract in
accordance with the prayer of the bill.
8. Reasoning:
The evidence showed that Lucy actually believe, and was warranted in
believing that the contract represented a serious business transaction and a
good faith sale and purchase of the farm. There had been what appeared
to be a good faith offer and a good faith acceptance, followed by the
execution and apparent delivery of a written contract. There was no request
or suggestion by either of the defendants that Lucy give back, the court
found this to be persuasive evidence that the execution of the contract was
a serious business transaction rather than a casual, jesting matter the
defendants were contending.