Please read the following facts and answer the questions that follow.

Lucy, the plaintiff, had desired to purchase Zehmer's (the defendant) farm for some time.Zehmer had, in the past, orally agreed to sell the farm to Lucy, only to later back out.One night, after the consumption of several alcoholic beverages between them, Zehmer agreed to sell Lucy his farm for $50,000 never imagining that Lucy would take it as he knew Lucy didn't have the cash.Zehmer was hoping to bluff or dare in order to force Lucy to admit that he didn't have the money.After discussing the matter for over 45 minutes, Zehmer wrote out his intention to sell his farm to Lucy on the back of a restaurant bill with the amount of consideration listed, subject to Lucy's satisfactory examination of the title.Zehmer then signed the bill and called his wife over to have her sign it as well.Then, he laid the bill on the table.Lucy picked it up, read it and put it in his pocket.Lucy tried to give Zehmer $5 to bind the bargain, which Zehmer refused to accept after realizing for the first time that Lucy was serious about the purchase.Zehmer assured him that he had no intention of selling the farm and that the whole matter was a joke.Lucy left the premises insisting that he had purchased the farm.The next day, Lucy arranged with his brother to put up half the money and take a half interest in the land.The day after that he hired an attorney to examine the title for the farm.Finding it to be satisfactory, he contacted Zehmer to finalize the sale.Zehmer contended that the sale was merely a joke, and otherwise, his intoxication left him without capacity to enter into the contract.Lucy disagreed and sued for specific performance of the contract.Zehmer claimed he was high as a Georgia pine.

Questions:

1. Do you believe there was a valid offer?If so, who made it?
2. Do you believe there was a valid acceptance?If so, who accepted?
3. Do you believe there was a meeting of the minds?(Remember to consider the appropriate standard under contract law)Why or why not?
4. Do you believe there are any issues with consent?If so, please explain.
5. How do you think the Court should rule? Given your opinion, what should the outcome be with respect to the property?