Question:Case: Lucy v. Zehmer

Brief Fact Summary.The Defendant, Zehmer (Defendant), writes a contract to sell land on a napkin and when the Plaintiff, Lucy (Plaintiff), tries to enforce it, Defendant claims he was only joking.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.If a party to the contract has a reasonable belief that the other party has the requisite intent to enter into the agreement when he does not, the contract is still enforceable.

Facts.Plaintiff's sued the Defendant for specific performance of a contract in which the Defendant sold to Plaintiff a tract of land containing 471.6 acres for $50,000. Plaintiff and Defendant were sitting around before Christmas drinking together. They had a conversation about selling land for $50,000. The parties wrote up a contract signed by the Defendant saying they would give up the land for $50,000. Plaintiff offered $5 to ensure the bargain was binding and the Defendant refused. A waitress even testified that the Defendant said he was joking. Plaintiff went out and got his brother to put up half of the money. Plaintiff went back to Defendant and Defendant said I was only joking (Defendant claimed he told Plaintiff he was joking right after the contract was made). Defendant's attorneys admitted that he wasn't too drunk to make a contract.

Questions:

a. What objective evidence was there to support the defendant's contention that they were just kidding when they agreed to sell the farm?

b. Suppose the defendants really did think the whole thing was a kind of joke.Would that make any difference?

c. As a matter of public policy, why does the law use an objective standard to determine the seriousness of intention, instead of a subjective standard?