Student Name: _______________________________________ LE 253 Sect.

001

LEGAL CASE BRIEF

Case Name: Lucy v. Zehmer Legal Citation: 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954)

Facts:

 Defendant A. H. Zehmer and his wife, Ida S. Zehmer, owned the Ferguson Farm, a
471.6-acre (190.8-ha) land parcel in Dinwiddie County, Virginia.
 Zehmer noted the agreement to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for
$50,000.00 on the backside of a dining receipt on 20 December 1952, and Zehmer and
his wife signed the note.
 Defendants proceeded to reject the contract when plaintiffs tried to complete the
transaction on the grounds that defendant spouse had been intoxicated at the time and the
contract was a joke on plaintiffs.

Procedure:

The Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County's ruling by Judge Hon. J. G. Jefferson, Jr.,
finding that the parties had entered no legally binding contract, infuriated the appellant. The
respondent has already accepted the appellant's offer; thus, the respondent cannot reject it,
according to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which reversed and
remanded the trial court's ruling.

Issue:

1. Was there a valid contract?

2. Is the specific performance a valid remedy?

Rule:

The response to the first issue/question is yes. The court determined that the parties had a
valid contract. The defendant was not so drunk, according to the court, that he was unaware of
the characteristics and results of the device he used. Lucy thought the acquisition was a
legitimate business deal, not a joke, because of the circumstances around it. Furthermore, a
contract can be formed without the parties' assent in mind. The concealed purpose of one person
is irrelevant if his words or other actions only have one rational context, unless the other party is
aware of the irrational meaning he assigns to his actions.

The response to the second issue/question is yes. According to the judge, the plaintiff's
rightful remedy was specific performance.
Application:

According to Justice Buchanan, a former member of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the
evidence revealed that Zehmer was not so disoriented that he could not understand the purpose
and ramifications of the instrument he used to commit. Lucy was entitled to believe that the
purchase was a serious business deal rather than a joke due to the circumstances around it. The
court's emphasis on earlier case law, which ordered that one must look to a person's outward
manifestations as reflecting his intention rather than to his private and unstated desire, served as
the basis for the reasoning in Lucy. Furthermore, according to Buchanan, the plaintiff's
legitimate remedy should be specific performance by quoting from the Restatement (First) of
Contracts that mental assent is not a requisite to form contracts.

Conclusion:

The Court decided that as long as the defendants' words and deeds gave rise to a rational
person's conclusion that a contract was intended, the real intent of the defendants in contracting
to sell their land was immaterial. Plaintiffs had a reasonable belief that the sale contract
represented a significant commercial transaction under the objective theory of contracts.
According to the evidence, the defendant's husband was not clearly intoxicated.

Ethics:

At least in its canonical and ethical expression, the law of contracts deals with voluntary,
or chosen, legal commitments. Ethical concerns in Lucy v. Zehmer can be hinted at by the
promisee's reliance interest and the duty not to hurt theory. Broken promises often result in the
promisee experiencing real expenses as a result of relying on the promise or as a result of having
their expectations not met. The need to avoid damage is implicated by promissory statements if
these expenses might be categorized as harms. According to the principle of fidelity, one has a
first-order obligation to keep their word. This obligation is not based on the bare fact of making a
promise, as is the case with the bare reasons view, but rather on the fact that promises provide
assurances that increase the likelihood that someone will be harmed. In this case, despite a
promisor's efforts to deny their promissory purpose and the promisee's reasonable confidence
following the initial an apparent act of promising, contractual duties are still imposed. More
broadly, the harm-based approach finds it difficult to justify why the law imposes culpability
even when the promissory estoppel incurs no trust costs or when the promisor is regarded to be
untrustworthy. Additionally, contracts between two parties are only enforceable under law
provided the conditions are reasonable. Inappropriate terms are those that attempt to limit a
party's legal rights or provide an unfair advantage. A contract with transparent and reasonable
conditions will save one's time, assist in avoiding conflicts and reputational harm, and safeguard
the party in the event of a mishap.
Student Name: _______________________________________ LE 253 Sect. 001

LEGAL CASE BRIEF

Case Name: Barnes v. McDonald's Corp. Legal Citation: 72 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (E.D. Ark. 1999)

Facts:
 McDonald's disputed the plaintiff's claim to the prize, claiming that the game stamp was a miss-
cut and was not intended to be an immediate winner for the "1998 McDonald's Monopoly Game,"
which stated: "$200,000 Dream Home Cash-Stamp 818-Need Stamps 818, 819, & 820 to Win-
Instant Winner."
 Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, dishonest business practices, breach of contract, and
violation of the Arkansas Prize Promotion Act, A.C.A sec. 4-102-106.
 McDonald’s relied on its posted game rules, which stated that stamps were void “if they contain
printing, typographical, mechanical, or other errors.”

Procedure:

The plaintiff Vernicesa Barnes filed a suit at the United States District Court, E.D.
Arkansas, Western Division on 3 March 1998 directed to McDonald’s negligence, deceptive
trade practices, and breach of contract. The Court was fully prepared to evaluate the effects of
this legislation on the breach of contract claim after reading all the plaintiff's submissions to date
on this matter as well as the statute itself. Accordingly, pending is defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment and plaintiff has responded to the Motion. Consequently, the court decided
that since there was no compliance, there was no contract and no obligation on the part of the
defendants, hence there could be no breach as there was no contract.

Issue:

1. Should McDonald’s Corporation be held accountable for a breach of contract and

violation of Arkansas Prize Promotion Act?
Rule:

The response to the question is no. A.C.A. 4-102-106 was put in place to prohibit
dishonest and false reward marketing. According to the law, prize promotions, competitions, and
sweepstakes must present customers with all the information they need to make an educated
choice. Sponsors of contests with prizes, like the McDonald's Monopoly, are obligated to
provide some pertinent information. These Game Boards were extensively distributed to the
public via a promotional advertisement for McDonald's Monopoly that was published in several
Sunday newspapers. With its Official Rules, the defendant made a unilateral contract offer that
could only be accepted by compliance with the conditions of the contract. The mere holding of a
game reward stamp was insufficient to compete for the big prizes provided by the defendant. The
plaintiff had to follow three conditions as stated in the game's official rules to win these rewards.
McDonald's would only be required to offer the award if these three criteria were complete.
Since the plaintiff lacked a legitimate winning ticket, they were unable to follow the promotion's
terms and conditions.
Application:

Here, unilateral contracts are clearly applied, as contrast to bilateral contracts, are
agreements in which one party (the one who offered) makes an offer to another party, an entity,
or the public. A unilateral contract explicitly states that payment will only be provided in
exchange for performance by one side. A prize or a competition is another illustration of a
unilateral contract. In a unilateral contract, the offeror has the right to withdraw it prior to the
offeree's commencement of performance. Usually, the revocation must be in writing. This
reasoning is consistent with the basic norm in most countries that a participant and contest
promoter only have a legal connection if the participant abides by the contest regulations. In
Waible v. McDonald's Corporation, the plaintiff presented a game token to the McDonald's
redemption center that was from a separate campaign being run by a grocery shop. The plaintiff
also claimed that merely having the item constituted accepting McDonald's offer. However,
Waible was given a token in exchange for agreeing to a unilateral contract, which could only be
acknowledged by complying with all the promotion's requirements. Since the token she provided
was not an actual token, she did not abide by all the promotion's rules. The offer was not
adequately accepted as a result.

Conclusion:

The contractual connection between the parties is governed by the Official Rules rather
than A.C.A. 4-102-106, which is why it does not comply. The plaintiff was unable to fulfil the
terms of the unilateral contract because she did not have a valid game-stamp. Since there is no
contract and no obligation on the part of the defendants because of this noncompliance, there can
be no breach. Both the breach of contract claim, and the violation of the Prize Promotion Act are
granted summary judgment.

Ethics:
The obvious ethical problem in this case can be related to the concept of altruism in relation to
the idea of a corporate game as a form of unilateral contract. The unilateral contract is one situation where
there is risk, whereas in an event that the offeree starts to perform, the offeree is susceptible since it has
invested expenses and might either cancel the offer or act opportunistically by cutting a less advantageous
agreement. This is also the primary reason why the Arkansas Prize Promotion Act was enacted and as to
why strict verification of all gaming materials is required at a participating store or at its redemption
center, as appropriate. If game materials are not received through approved, legal sources, are altered in
any way, or have printing, typographical, mechanical, or other faults, they will be deemed invalid and
rejected such as in this case of Barnes v. McDonald’s. If unilateral agreements were legally enforceable, it
would be difficult to tell whether someone was acting out of concern for others or out of fear of facing
legal repercussions. Since it expressly addresses the legal standing of promises of prize promotions or
gift-giving in general, this argument has the ethical platform. However, it only seems to partially support
the consideration rule. First off, a lot of unilateral contracts are not presented as rewards, at least not in
the way that the argument assumes. They are not always chosen as completely selfless actions that serve
to initiate, strengthen, or represent a certain kind of intimate or unique connection. The second premise of
the argument is that for the gift or prize to be worth its weight, keeping the promise must be driven by
altruism, and that the receiver must comply with the terms and conditions given that in the first place,
he/she chose to participate in the promotion.