Lucy v. Zehmer case brief summary
196 Va. 493
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs appealed decision of the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County, Virginia, holding plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance on a contract for the sale of defendants' real estate to plaintiffs.
FACTS:
Defendant husband wrote and signed a contract to sell his farm to plaintiffs and persuaded defendant wife to sign by telling her the contract was a joke on plaintiffs. When plaintiffs attempted to finalize sale, defendants attempted to deny contract on the grounds that defendant husband was drunk when making the contract and the contract was a joke on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued for specific performance. The trial court found for defendants. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded.
HOLDING:
Defendants' true intent in agreeing to sell their farm was not determinative so long as their words and actions warranted a reasonable person's belief that a contract was intended.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiffs reasonably believed the sale contract was a serious business transaction. The evidence suggested defendant husband was not too drunk to know what he was doing.
OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded, because the contract was a binding contract of sale between the parties despite defendants' claim they had not intended to sell their farm and that the sale contract had been intended as a joke.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
196 Va. 493
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs appealed decision of the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County, Virginia, holding plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance on a contract for the sale of defendants' real estate to plaintiffs.
FACTS:
Defendant husband wrote and signed a contract to sell his farm to plaintiffs and persuaded defendant wife to sign by telling her the contract was a joke on plaintiffs. When plaintiffs attempted to finalize sale, defendants attempted to deny contract on the grounds that defendant husband was drunk when making the contract and the contract was a joke on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued for specific performance. The trial court found for defendants. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded.
HOLDING:
Defendants' true intent in agreeing to sell their farm was not determinative so long as their words and actions warranted a reasonable person's belief that a contract was intended.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiffs reasonably believed the sale contract was a serious business transaction. The evidence suggested defendant husband was not too drunk to know what he was doing.
OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded, because the contract was a binding contract of sale between the parties despite defendants' claim they had not intended to sell their farm and that the sale contract had been intended as a joke.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment