FIRAC

W. O. LUCY AND J. C. LUCY v. A. H. ZEHMER AND IDA S. ZEHMER

Facts:

This suit was initiated by W.O Lucy and J. C. Lucy, the plaintiffs against A. H. Zehmer and Ida S.

Zehmer, the defendants for the sale of the Ferguson farm for $50,000 which was owned by the

defendants. The contract was signed on the back of a guest check at a bar. Both the parties had had

several drinks but not to the extent of complete intoxication as testified by the other customers in the

bar. The plaintiff had made several attempts to buy the farm in the past but all of them had been

rejected by the defendant. In this case the defendant was just joking with the plaintiff about selling the

farm for $50,000 just to see if the plaintiff could actually pay it. Lucy asked Zehmer to change the “I”

in the contract to “we” and asked his wife to also sign the contract. Zehmer then got his wife to sign the

contract by telling her it was only a joke. The plaintiff took the contract seriously and even offered to

pay $5 to seal the deal. At that point the defendant realized that the plaintiff was serious and assured

him that he had no intention of selling the farm. The plaintiffs filed a case in the lower court and the

court stated that the complaint failed to establish specific performance and thus held for the defendants

by dismissing the case. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia and it ruled in the

favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue:

1. Whether the parties were so intoxicated that they could not understand the terms of the contract?

2. Whether the plaintiff had any indication of the fact that the defendant was joking when the signed the

contract?

3. Did the defendant have the intention to enter into a contract?

4. Whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is valid?
Rule:

1. According to The Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, section 71, p. 74. "The

law, therefore, judges of an agreement between two persons exclusively from those

expressions of their intentions which are communicated between them.”

2. First Nat. Bank v. Roanoke Oil Co., 169 Va. 99, 192 S.E. 764 (Va. 1937)

3. "Taliaferro et al. v. Emery. March 13, 1919. [98 S. E. 627.]"

Analysis:

 Issue 1: Whether the parties were so intoxicated that they could not understand the terms of the

contract?

Plaintiff”s argument - testimony + dropping home

Defendant’s argument – When Zehmer walked into the restaurant, he saw Lucy and exclaimed

at how intoxicated he seemed. Here he’s trying to show that Lucy was intoxicated and he was

incapable of entering into a contract.

 Issue 3: Did the defendant have the intention to enter into a contract?

Plaintiff’s argument – Lucy and Zehmer had discussed the pros and cons of the deal for a long

time.

Defendant’s argument – Zehmer testified that he had bought the land over ten years ago for

$11,000. He had gotten around 25 offers from people to buy the farm, including several from
the plaintiff and he had rejected all offers. He also very clearly told his wife that he was joking

when he was getting her to sign the contract.

Court’s judgement –