Review the Facts below:

In the trial court:

"Defendant A. H. Zehmer and hiswife, Ida S. Zehmer, owned a tract of land of 471.6 acres (190.8ha) inDinwiddie County, Virginia, known as the Ferguson Farm. Plaintiff W. O. Lucy had known Zehmer for many years and had previously expressed interest in purchasing thefarm. Some years prior to the case, Zehmer had orally agreed to sell the farm to Lucy but later reconsidered and declined to complete the sale.

On December 20, 1952, Lucy entered the restaurant owned by Zehmer with a bottle ofwhiskeyin his hand. Lucy and Zehmer consumed a significant quantity ofdistilled spiritsand discussed the possible sale of the farm. Zehmer wrote on the back of the restaurant's receipt stating, "We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00,titlesatisfactory tobuyer". The note was signed by Zehmer and his wife.

Zehmer later alleged that his wife had initially balked at his request that she sign the instrument, but she relented when Zehmer assured her that his intent to sell the farm was merely injest.

The next day, Lucy spoke to his brother, J.C. Lucy, about thepurchase, and he hired anattorneyto examine the title. After the attorney assured Lucy that the title was clear, she wrote a letter to Zehmer asking when he intended toclose the deal. In his reply, Zehmer insisted that he had never intended to sell the farm and that the note signed by him and his wife was written in jest, consistent with the jovial atmosphere and drunken camaraderie the parties were sharing that evening.

Zehmer claimed on the witness stand that the circumstances were such that Lucy should have known he was tooinebriatedto agree to the sale.Depositionswere taken, and the decree appealed from was entered. It held that the complainants had failed to establish their right to specific performance, and it dismissed their bill."

The Higher Court reversed and held:

"Archibald C. Buchanan, who had served on the Supreme Court of Virginia since 1946,wrote for the unanimous court, holding that the record suggested that Zehmer was not intoxicated to the point of being unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed. The circumstances surrounding the transaction were such that Lucy was justified in believing that it was a serious business transaction, rather than a mere jest. On the latter point, Buchanan quoted from theRestatement (First) of Contracts:

The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party.

Buchanan further held thatspecific performancewas the proper remedy for the plaintiff."

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer

1.I would agree that mutual assent requires agreement between all parties, but how is this agreement demonstrated? Are all forms of agreement acceptable?

2.Second, remember that consideration is what each party expects in exchange for the promise under the contract. Zehmer was making a very specific argument as to way he refused to sell Lucy the land. Consideration was definitely a key element in the higher court's ruling, but what was the main question the court was answering?