Question: Because of its unique and ideal location, Steven owns one of the most lucrative small orange groves in the country. A neighboring orange grove owner, Alex, someone Steven has known for years, is envious because Alex's10-acre orange grove does not regularly produce the quality and quantity of oranges that Steven's 5-acre grove does. A recent, professional appraisal of the real estate containing Steven's orange grove and the structures on it valued it at $5M.

One night, Steven and Alex go out drinking with their wives, and all four of them have too much to drink. Alex, through slurred speech, tells Steven "I bet you wouldn't take $10M for your property", to which Steven's eyes light up and he replies back, barely intelligible through his own drunken speech, "I bet you wouldn't pay $10M for my property". Alex replies, "it's a deal!".

Feeling good about making $10M, or twice what the land is worth, Alex takes a bar napkin and writes the following on it: "We will sell Alex our land with the orange grove and all the structures on it for $10 million dollars." Although his handwriting is quite sloppy from intoxication, Steven's writing is intelligible. However, when he tried to sign the napkin, he barely managed to get only the "S" on it before falling asleep with the pen in his hand. Alex grabbed the napkin and took it home.

The next afternoon, Alex called up Steven and told him that he would have his attorney contact Steven to set up a closing date.

Steven replied: "Dude, we were so drunk, we couldn't even sit up straight. I don't remember signing anything. There's no way I would have agreed to sell you my land, even for $10 million, if I was sober."

Alex filed a lawsuit against Steven seeking performance on the contract. As evidence, he produced the napkin, and sworn testimony was provided by Alex and both wives that Steven indeed wrote out the above words on the napkin.

Steven's defense is that because he was "as high as a California Redwood tree that night", he was absolutely in no condition to enter into a contract. The other three confirmed in testimony that during the two-hour dinner they had six rounds of drinks, and were all drunk that evening.

Assume the parties live in a state where only one spouse's signature is acceptable to sell jointly held property so long as the non-signing spouse attests to the existence of the contract.

Who should win this case? Discuss this situation fully, using legal concepts and reasoning you've learned in class.