Lucy V Zehmer Case Summary

Lucy v. Zehmer: The court focused on the contract being written in Zhemer’s handwriting and the both of them signed it. Even though Zehmer told Lucy the next day that it was the liquor talking and that he didn’t want to sell the farm, the court believed that Lucy was serious about purchasing the farm because he believed the contract was legit. By believing in the contract, the next day he focused on getting the money. The night they met at the restaurant, Zehmer had told Lucy that he couldn’t get the money that night. The court could have based the contract solely on that night; they could have said that the agreement was for that night only. Another point that could have been made, was due to the fact that both men had been drinking and that the contract was null and void because neither one of them were thinking clearly. Even though the court agreed with Lucy and he won the case, it should have been put into writing that if he sells the land within a certain period of time, he should share some of the earnings with Zehmer. This way Zehmer was able to make a little money off the land because he sold it prematurely. Theory to Practice: There was never a contract because officially there wasn’t anything in writing that both parties agreed to and signed off on. Even though the email stated “Strat Deal”, it still doesn’t mean it’s a contract set in stone. In order for a contract to be valid, I believe that both parties should have input. Chou should have asked questions instead of just assuming The written agreement should have been written with 45 days, that way if any changes needed to be made they would have enough time to make those changes before the 90 days were up. Yes, because they should have also been communicating by phone or face to face meetings. This way each party would have a better understanding of what’s going on because emails can sometimes be …show more content…
If they want to be considered a credible company, they should overlook the issue with the email and move on. If the shoe was on the other foot, they would want things to be reconsidered for them. The contract could also be voided due to the fact that BTT had a change in management. Chou could argue that there was nothing definite in writing, stating the terms; he could also argue the point of not being informed of the management change.
Jacob and Youngs v. Kent: Yes, this opinion is convincing because JY was there to do a job to the satisfaction of the client. If the client wanted a certain type of pipe in his home, then that is what JY should have provided. Even though the pipes they used were supposedly the same, that’s not what the client asked, signed, and paid for. JY should have been made to pay Kent back the difference in cost of the two pipes. In the agreement, Kent should have listed that using Reading brand pipe was required and if it wasn’t used for any reason, then JY should be held liable for not following instructions. Also, in the agreement, he should have mentioned that if the Reading brand wasn’t available, then he should be notified as soon as this was