The “Missing” Contractual Element According to Zehmer
The contractual element Zehmer contended was missing is the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. Zehmer tried to claim that at the time of the transaction, he was incapacitated because, being under the influence of alcohol, he signed it as a joke. Legal capacity is understood as the ability to acquire rights and create responsibilities for oneself through their actions.
Suppose a person, due to a mental disorder or being in an inadequate state of drug or alcohol intoxication, cannot understand the meaning of his actions or direct them. In that case, the court recognizes him as incapacitated (Baker, 2023). If a person regains the ability to understand their actions and direct them, the court may recognize them as capable. The waitress who was present during the conversation confirmed that Zehmer was not in a state of such strong intoxication that he did not give an account of his actions.
The Court Ruling and the Reason for It
The court ruling can be summarized as recognition of the signed contract as valid. According to him, Mr. Zehmer needs to sell his farm to Mr. Lucy at the specified price. The court recognized the signed contract of sale of the plot concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant as legitimate (Baker, 2023). It was not possible to prove that after the transaction, the genuine will of the parties was not aimed at creating those legal consequences that occur when it is made.
The grounds for recognizing the transaction as valid were not formal moments but the absence of a real violation of the plaintiff’s rights by the disputed transaction. This is because the presumption of the nullity of transactions that do not comply with the law has been changed to the presumption of their impregnability (Lucy v. Zehmer, 1954). That is, by themselves, violations of the law committed after the transaction will not allow it to be considered invalid. The plaintiff must prove to the court what real adverse consequences he received from the disputed transaction.
In this case, there are no circumstances that could help Mr. Zehmer challenge the transactions. The transaction did not have a purpose for making a transaction other than the one that is usually pursued when concluding such agreements. There was no abuse of rights committed by the parties to the transaction or negative legal consequences for the participants of the transaction, for the rights and legitimate interests of other citizens and legal entities (Lucy v. Zehmer, 1954). In addition, the parties to the agreement had no other obligations, the fulfillment of which the transaction creates or will create obstacles in the future.
Personal Opinion Regarding the Ruling
I agree with the ruling, and a rationale to support my ideas is the presence of formally necessary components of the existing contract since it was two-sided and contained both the subject, Mr. Zehmer’s farm, and its price. As a general rule, the subject is any movable and immovable property that has not been withdrawn from civil circulation. The price determines the cost of the plot and implies the presence of certain costs included in the cost of the farm. Therefore, from the determination of the price in the contract of sale, it is necessary to distinguish the formation of the price of the goods even before the conclusion of the contract of sale (Franklin, 2019). Since both clauses were specified in the signed contract, I can make a statement that it was valid and I agree with the court’s decision.
Personal Experience: Entering into a Contract Unrecognized as Binding
A personal experience in which I entered into a contract that I did not think of as a binding contract at the time was taking money from my ex-boyfriend. I had to pay the rent, and he offered to lend me money by signing a receipt. I thought he was joking and decided to support the joke by signing a receipt. It seemed to me that he was helping me for free and just fooling around so that I would not be embarrassed by having to take money from him. However, a month later, he demanded the money back, and when I was surprised by this, he took out a receipt and threatened to go to court with it. I realized that I had not just jokingly signed on paper but entered into a contract that I did not think of as binding at the time.
The elements not specified in the contract were the terms in the contract of sale and its form. The seller has the right to execute such an agreement not within the framework of the onset or after the expiration of the period specified in it, with the consent of the buyer of the land plot. Therefore, it is not known by what date the transaction should be executed, but the absence of a strictly defined deadline does not mean that it is optional (Lucy v. Zehmer, 1954). For certain types of purchase and sale, the legislation may contain special rules on the form of the contract and the procedure for its conclusion. However, the absence of special requirements for the contract’s form is not a reason for its termination since, in this case, it does not meet the special requirements contained in the legislation.
References
Baker, K. K. (2023). The polyamorous threat to nonmarriage. Family Court Review, 61(1), 81–101.
Franklin, K. (2019). Meditations on teaching what isn’t: Theorizing the invisible in law and law school. New York Law School, 66(2), 387–413.
Lucy v. Zehmer (1954). 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516