Read the excerpt of the Lucy v. Zehmer case in the JM Contracts Text (p. 91) and post a discussion board response to the following prompt: What objective evidence was there to support the defendants' contention that they were just kidding when they agreed to sell the farm? Suppose the defendants really did think the whole thing was a kind of joke. Would that make any difference? 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? You may also comment on the Leonard v. Pepsico case and contrast the finding in it with Lucy. The case text is here: Leonard v Pepsico Inc.pdf Download Leonard v Pepsico Inc.pdfand you can watch the commercial itself at this linkLinks to an external site