Buisness Law Homework Help

1

Carson Thummel

Ann Sanok

BUS 206

12 June 2022

Module 6 Lucy v Zhemer

Generally, the meaning of a contract is defined through digging into the intentions of the parties when the contract is being created. This is observed through an outward expression of an individual and a manifestation of his intentions. In this contract, Zhemer contends that a real agreement as the fundamental contractual element was missing due to the fact that he was merely jesting when his conduct and words warranted a reasonable person (Fokina, 2020). That despite the fact that a contract was reached, that it should be declined and ought not to be enforced on the grounds of equity especially with owing to the fact that the circumstances under which it was reach was questionable. Such circumstances are disclosing that the two parties were drinking, even though the evidence suggest that it was not to the extent they could not understand entirely what they were doing.

Summary of the Court Ruling

The court fundamentally reversed the case in favor of Plaintiff on the grounds that even though Zhemer was jesting regarding the sales of the land, it was an intention concealed and did not appear to Lucy that it was so but that it was a serious business transaction and a binding contract between the two parties (Fokina, 2020). The evidence proclaims that Lucy was warranted in believing that the contract was a presentation of a serious business transaction and a good faith sale and purchase of the farm on the basis of the series of activities that had been employed.

This is why the court in issues of contract, only pay attention to the outward expression of a person as the manifestation of his intentions instead of the secret and unexpressed intention. That the law is imputing to a person an intention corresponding to a reasonable meaning of his words and actions.

It means that Zhemer was just not capable of establishing that he was merely jesting while on the contrary his word and actions are warranting a reasonable peron in believing that he intended the actual or real agreement. So whether the writings signed by the defendants and which were been sought for enforcement by the complaints was deemed to be the outcome of a serious offer by Lucy and a serious acceptance by the defendants, or perhaps it was a serious offer by Lucy and an acceptance in secret jest by the defendants, in either event the Court held that it constituted a binding contract of sale between the parties (Fokina, 2020).

The rationale here is that the court reads the contract in its entirety and based on the ordinary meaning of the words. And generally the meaning of the contract is defined by observing the intentions of the parties at the time the contract is being created. In an event where the intentions of the parties are seemingly lacking clarity, the courts is obliged to consider any customs and usage of a particular business aid in a specific locale that are capable of determining the intentions (Fokina, 2020). By oral contracts, the court can determine the intention of the parties with the consideration of the contracts’ formation, together with the course of dealing between the parties.

I agree with the ruling, because it is clearly stated that in this contract Zhemer had affirmed the fact that there was the making of the contract which means he had gone through the entire process consciously without being coerced or manipulated in any way. Also, the evidence affirms the fact that even the very circumstance that they were drunk, they were fully oriented to understand each other. This is ia clear affirmation of the ruling that the court reached, that the outward expression was the focus because it was what had to manifest the intentions of the person rather than looking at his secret unexpressed intentions. No one can think of anybody or know what they are thinking at any given point when they do not speak or act on it (Fokina, 2020). Therefore, to interpret the intentions of an individual like Zhemer who was conscious and in agreement that he had understood the basis of the contract, I agree with the court when they rule based of such intentions.

I think one of the contracts that I entered recently which is closely connected to this case study is when I bought some residential unit in our college campus. I was overly excited that I betrayed my insticts of not wanting to purchase the room, but still went ahead and purchased it based of its lucrative nature and the convincing power of the person who was selling the house. I think there was an agreement but because of my excitement, I had missed out on the elements like awareness, consideration and even the legality of the deal (Fokina, 2020). I ended up with the contract I did not fully accept and this why I think excitement and jesting in businesses that to some people they consider serious, could be seriously inconviniencing.

Works Cited

Fokina, M. A. (2020). Contractual Elements in Civil Procedure. Herald Civ. Proc., 119.