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 …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