operated. While there, Lucy tried to buy the Ferguson Farm once again by using a new approach. According to the trial court transcript, Lucy said to Zehmer, \"I bet you wouldn't take $50,000 for that place." Zehmer replied, \"Yes, I would too; you wouldn't give fifty." Throughout the evening, the conversation returned to the sale ofthe Ferguson Farm for $50,000. All the while, the men continued to drink whiskey and engage in light conversation. Eventually, Lucy enticed Zehmer to write up an agreement to the effect that the Zehmers would sell the Ferguson Farm to Lucy for $50,000. Later; Lucy sued the Zehmers to compel them to go through with the sale. Zehmer argued that he had been drunk and that the offer had been made in jest and hence was unenforceable. The trial court agreed with Zehmer, and Lucy appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. In the Words of the Court BUCHANAN, ]. [Justice] delivered the opinion of the court. \"Home In his testimony, Zehmer 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.\" That claim is inconsistent with his attempt to testify in great detail as to what was said and what was done. **=lc3{c The appearance of the contract, the fact that it was under discussion for forty minutes or more before it was signed; Lucy's objection to the first draft because it was written in the singular; and he wanted Mrs. [Ida] Zehmer to sign it also; the rewriting to meet that objection and the signing by Mrs. Zehmer; the discussion of what was to be included in the sale, the provision for the examination of the title, the completeness of the instrument that was executed, the taking possession of it by Lucy with no request or suggestion by either of the defendants that he give it back, are facts which furnish persuasive evidence that the execution of the contract was a serious business transaction rather than a casual, jesting matter as defendants now contend. arcaicalcaic In the field of contracts, as generally elsewhere, we must iook to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention. The law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. [Emphasis added] $$=l==i= Whether the writing signed by the defendants and now sought to be enforced by the complainants was the result ofa 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. Decision and Remedy The Supreme Court oprpeals of Virginia determined that the writing was an enforceable contract and reversed the ruling of the lower court. The Zehmers were required by court order to follow through with the sale of the Ferguson Farm to Lucy. Classic Case 10.2|Lucy v. Zehmer Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954). Can an intoxicated person's offer to sell his farm for a specific price meet the serious-intent requirement? @Ocwcreations/Shutterstock.com X @Dcwcreations/ Shutterstock.com Background and Facts W.O. Lucy had known A.H. Zehmer, and his wife, Ida, for more than fifteen years. For the past eight years of their acquaintance, Lucy had been anxious to buy a property called the Ferguson Farm from the Zehmers. One night, Lucy stopped to visit the Zehmers in the combination restaurant and gas station they operated. While there, Lucy tried to buy the Ferguson Farm once again by using a new approach.l Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement