Lucy v. Zehmer

Facts

W. O. Lucy had long wanted to buy A. H. Zehmer's Ferguson farm, a 471.6-acre tract in Dinwiddie county. On the evening of December 20, 1952, Lucy went to the restaurant, filling station and motor court Zehmer ran in McKenney and offered $50,000 cash for the farm. The deal was under discussion for forty minutes or more, and both men had been drinking. Zehmer wrote the agreement on the back of a restaurant check. Lucy objected to the first draft because it was written in the singular, and Zehmer rewrote it so his wife Ida would sign too. The final writing read: “We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer.” Both Zehmers signed. Both later testified that when Zehmer asked his wife to sign, he whispered that it was a joke so Lucy would not hear. Lucy took the paper, offered $5 to bind the bargain, and Zehmer refused it. The next day Lucy arranged for his brother J. C. Lucy to take a half interest; on Monday he hired an attorney to examine the title, and on January 2 he wrote Zehmer that he was ready to pay and close. Zehmer answered by letter that he had never agreed or intended to sell. The Zehmers' defense was that the writing was a bluff or dare and the whole matter a joke, that it was never delivered to Lucy, and that Zehmer had been drinking heavily.

Issues

1. Did the writing the Zehmers signed form a binding contract to sell the Ferguson farm, even though Zehmer claimed he was jesting when he signed it?
2. Was Zehmer too intoxicated to make a valid contract?
3. Should equity grant specific performance of the contract?

Holding

Zehmer was not too intoxicated to comprehend the instrument he signed, and the evidence showed a serious business transaction, not a jest. Whether the Zehmers' acceptance was serious or given in secret jest, the signed writing was a binding contract of sale: Lucy's serious offer met what appeared to be a good faith acceptance, and Lucy actually and reasonably believed the deal was serious. With none of the usual grounds against specific performance present, the Lucys were entitled to it, and the court remanded for entry of that decree.