1

6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer

Names

Institution

Course

Instructor’s Name

Date
 2

6-1 Case Analysis: Lucy v. Zehmer

In the case of Lucy v. Zehmer, the parties prepared a contract to sell Zehmer's property

while they were both under the influence of alcohol at the time. When Lucy asked Zehmer

whether he was serious about selling his property to her for $50,000, Zehmer denied that he was

being serious. Lucy felt certain the offer was genuine and not a ruse of any kind. The next day,

Lucy finished up all the transactional details left unfinished. Lucy confronted Zehmer about the

property sale, and Zehmer responded by stating that he would not sell the land since the offer

was absurd. Lucy gave Zehmer the assurance that the purchase of the property would be made

in an honest and sincere manner.

Lucy, the plaintiff, was awarded the most favorable ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeals

of Virginia after the court reviewed the settlement agreement. This conclusion was arrived at as

a result of the parties entering into a sales agreement that is legally binding (Kubasek, 2020, p.

349). Lucy, who was representing herself as the plaintiff, was never able to understand why

Zehmer and the other defendants thought he was joking. The judge made his judgment after

considering all of the evidence and hearing arguments from all sides of the dispute, and he

based his conclusion entirely on the facts of the case. Due to the fact that there was a consensus

on the sale of the farm between the two parties, a contract was negotiated and finalized with

their participation.

We learned about the agreement as the first contract component before this one titled

"Elements of the Offer." This contract component comprises an offer and an acceptance

(Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 347). Even though I see that Zehmer is making a comedy out of the

situation, I find nothing wrong with the judge's choice to rule in Lucy's favor. I agree with the

opposite decision since Lucy made a genuine offer detailing the terms and communicated them
 3

to Zehmer in a legally binding contract. In light of this, the common law recognizes aspects of

this behavior as constituting an offer (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 347).

Personally, over the course of the last year, I've had a conversation with my ex-husband

about the schedule for our kid, and we've come to an agreement on certain days and times for

pick-ups. This past month, however, her school schedule changed, and I made the executive

decision to adapt my work schedule to match hers; despite this, when I notified her father of

these modifications, he became upset. This past month, however, her school schedule changed.

He said that since we had an oral agreement, it was legally essential for us to stick to the

schedule that we had established. At that same moment, I realized that he was right and that I

needed to make the necessary alterations to keep the timeframe consistent with what we had

discussed earlier.
 4

References

Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Herron, D., Giampetro-Meyer, A., Barkacs, L., Dhooge, L., &

Williamson, C. (2020). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.) [Connect digital version].

http://connect.mheducation.com/