SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hey everybody, in this episode, let's talk about a case that you will probably read in your first year contracts class, Lucy V. Zemmer. Let's talk about it.

SPEAKER_01 0:10

Welcome to Law School Decoded, the podcast that pulls back the curtain on what it's really like to succeed in law school. Let's get started.

SPEAKER_00 0:23

So Lucy V. Zemmer is a popular case in law school textbooks. It's one that you are likely to read towards the beginning of your first year contracts class. And before we dive into the case, go flip back to the table of contents in your contracts class and see where Lucy V. Zemmer falls. It is probably in a section of your textbook about contractual offers or about when parties have entered into assent to a contract. So the kind of issue that we know we're going to be dealing with based on the table of contents is whether parties have assented to a contract. Let's see how that came up in Lucy v. Zemmer. Before starting to read the body of the case, let's see what we know about the procedural posture just from the header. It's a case from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in 1954, is when the case decision was issued by that court. So that is a state appellate court. So we know right off the bat, this was a case that was in the trial court. Something happened in the trial court, and then one party appealed. And now this is the court of appeals looking at the case, looking at the decision that was appealed and issuing some kind of opinion in writing. So let's see what the case was about. When you start reading the case, the first thing the court is going to present to you is what the allegations in the case are, what the basics of the case is. So you're going to learn as you read through it that this was a case brought by two brothers, W.O. Lucy and J.C. Lucy. And they sued the Zemmers, A. H. Zemmer, and Ida Zemmer, husband and wife. And what did the Lucies want from the Zemmers in the lawsuit? They wanted specific performance of a contract. Okay, what does specific performance mean? You're going to learn about that much more later when you learn about remedies. But what specific performance means here is that the Lucies wanted the court to order the Zemmers to do something. They're not just suing for money, they're suing to have the Zemmers engage in some kind of performance that the Zemmers haven't done. Okay, so what is the case about? What are the Lucy's alleging? What the Lucy's claimed when they filed their lawsuit was that the Zemmers had agreed to sell to W.O. Lucy, a tract of land that A.H. Zemmer owned and that Lucy wanted to buy. And Lucy said, hey, I agreed to buy that land for $50,000. And Zemmer agreed to sell it to me. And by the way, the next day, I went to my brother, my brother, JC Lucy, and JC agreed to put up half the money for the land in exchange for a 50% interest in the land after we got it. And so we had this contract for me to buy land from the Zemmers, and the Zemmers aren't honoring it. And so I want this court to order the Zemmers to engage in specific performance by selling me that land, by going through with the agreement that we had for me to get that land. What is the contract in this case? Well, the Lucy's presented it to the court, and what it was was the back of a restaurant check, ye old Virginia restaurant, Virginia restaurant, as it's spelled back then, a garage and service station restaurant, apparently. And on that back of that check, A.H. Zemmer had written on December 20th, 1952, we agree to sell W.O. Lucy the Ferguson farm for $50,000. And it was signed by both A.H. Zemmer and his wife, Ida Zemmer. So the Lucies presented this contract to the court and said, court, order the Zemmers to go through with the sale. Now the Zemmers filed an answer in court to those allegations, and they denied that they were should be required to sell the farm for $50,000. Now they did admit that W.O. Lucy offered to buy the farm for $50,000 cash. But what Zemmer said was, look, I thought this was a joke. We were talking about this over drinks, I guess, at this restaurant. And we wrote out, I wrote out this memorandum, this, this on the back of this check, and I had my wife sign it. But I didn't even deliver that to Lucy, Zemmer said. Lucy just picks it up, he reads it, he puts it in his pocket, and then he tries to give me $5 to seal this deal. And I refuse to accept that. I realized for the first time at that point, oh my gosh, Lucy actually wants to buy this farm of mine. Well, I don't want to sell it. And he said right then and there, I have no intention of selling you my farm. This whole thing is a joke. That's what Zemmer said, at least. Lucy then left the premises. Okay, so that's what the allegations were by Lucy. That's what Zemmer initially said in their answer defending against those allegations. The case went forward in the trial court procedurally. After that, there were depositions. Evidence was gathered. And ultimately, after all that evidence was put together, the court looked at the case. Maybe the court had a trial. I can't tell that from this opinion. But the court entered a judgment or decree. And the court actually held hey, I believe that the Lucies don't have a right to specific performance here. They don't have a right to this land. So I am going to dismiss this lawsuit. So that is what the Lucy's appealed. They appealed that substantive decision of the trial court to the appellate court and said, we think that that was erroneous. We think that the court should have come to the opposite decision. And so now the appellate court is looking at that. So when all these depositions were taken and the parties testified, what did the evidence look like? Well, what the Zemmers were saying was, look, there was enough evidence in that record to show that we did not actually intend to sell our farm to Lucy for $50,000. In fact, I insist, what happened was that when I told Lucy I would sell it for $50,000, it was in jest, it was a dare to force Lucy to admit that he didn't have $50,000. And look, I never actually gave the writing to Lucy. Lucy kind of took it out of my hand. And so the evidence proves there was no, there was no contract to sell Lucy the farm. And in fact, in those depositions, when Zemmer was testifying, he said, look, I was really drunk during this transaction that allegedly happened. I was not intending to sell the farm to Lucy. What the court noted was, well, even though you say that, your testimony is inconsistent with some of the other evidence about your condition on that day. In fact, when Lucy left the restaurant, she apparently suggested that Zemmer drive him home. And so the court found, the court of appeals, that the record was convincing that Zemmer was not so intoxicated that he was unable to comprehend what he was doing, such that he didn't have capacity to enter into a contract. That's not really the key holding or ruling from this case. Don't be fooled. But it is an important thing. If Zemmer had been saying, oh my gosh, I'm too drunk to make a contract, I don't have capacity to do it, that could be a defense. But that's not what the Zemmers were saying, and that wasn't the case. So Zemmer also pointed out, or the court also noted on appeal, look, Zemmer wrote down two different agreements. The first one began with, I hereby agree to sell. And Zemmer said, Look, I don't remember writing that. I don't think I wrote that. But Ms. Zemmer said that what he wrote out was, I hereby agree, but then the I was changed to we after that night. The agreement that was written and signed into the record, though, before the court didn't have that change. So that was what was before the court. So what the court did was it looked at the evidence, it looked at the contract, and what it noted was that the Lucy's objected to the first draft because it was written in a singular. It was written as I agree to sell, and Lucy wanted Ms. Zemmer to sign it. The rewriting happened. So that and it was signed by Ms. Zemmer. They discussed what was to be included in the sale. They discussed the provision in there about examining the title that was in the written contract. I didn't mention that when I went over the facts, but the agreement said title satisfactory to buyer. And so that was in the agreement. They discussed what was going to happen next in terms of Lucy taking possession. So what happened next? The court's looking at all this evidence, and the court is saying, gosh, the next day Lucy went and arranged for his brother to be involved in this transaction. To us, this indicates that the parties were going back and forth and they were actually negotiating the sale of this land, and that Lucy would interpret this as an offer to sell the land. Lucy actually believed that the Zemmers were serious. So what the Zemmers are saying is I wasn't serious. And Lucy is saying I did believe that it was serious. And we had a written agreement to do this. But of course, when Lucy went back to Zemmer after securing his brother's financing, Zemmer said, I'm not selling you anything. And I didn't agree to sell you anything. And that's when everything went to court for the trial court to decide. And again, the trial court decided in favor of the Zemmers before the case went on appeal. So the Court of Appeals had to decide what to do with this appeal. Who wins it? Do the Lucy's get the land, or do the Zemmers get to keep it? And is the court going to say there was a contract to sell the land, or is the court going to say, no, there was no agreement to do that here? So what does the court turn to? Contract law, of course, and what rules is the court going to use to determine whether the parties assented to the sale of land? Well, what the court says is that in deciding whether there was a contract, it is going to look to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention. What the court is saying is even though Zemmer says he was joking in court, he never said that at the time, outwardly Zemmer was indicating that he was willing to enter into a contract to sell the land. So again, all the outward manifestations by Zemmer indicated that there was a genuine good faith offer made, and that Lucy accepted it, and that Lucy was willing to go forward with that contract. And it wasn't until later when Lucy offered $5 to quote unquote seal the bargain that Zemmer said, wait a minute, wait a minute, I don't agree to this. But it was too late at that point because Zemmer had offered to sell the land. Lucy had offered to pay $50,000. There were mutual promises on both sides. The $5 wasn't needed to do anything. So what the court said, and this is the key rule that you get to from this case, is that the mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meeting, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meeting, which he attaches to his manifestation, is known to the other party. An agreement or mutual assent, of course, is of course essential to a valid contract, but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words or acts. So what the court is saying is that yes, parties need to have mutual assent in order to enter into a contract. Here, the Lucies and Zemmer needed to agree that the Zemmers would sell and that the Lucies would pay 50,000. That was necessary to form a valid contract. But the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. And so here, even though Zemmer was saying, wait a minute, I didn't mean what I was saying, the Court of Appeals in Virginia is saying, No way, Zemmer, you spoke up. You acted and said things to indicate that you were selling this land. And so as a result, you are going to be held to that contract. We're not just going to let you walk into court and say, oops, I didn't mean to, and walk away from the contract. So the court, after reviewing that evidence, reversed the trial court decision versus the trial court decree and ordered the trial court to enter another decree that was going to require the Zemmers to perform the contract in accordance with what the Lucy's had asked. And so the holding of the case was that the trial court had erred in entering a decree in favor of Lucy based on the Zemmers' contention that he didn't actually mean to enter into a contract to sell his land. What the court's holding was was that that was error and that the court needed to change its decision and instead enter a decree in favor of the Lucy's, requiring the Zemmers to sell that land to the Lucies. So the Lucies were gonna get the specific performance that they wanted out of the case. So that's Lucy B. Zemmer. Think about how this case might come up on your exam and how you should put it into your outline. You should look at the exact case in your textbook and phrase the rule statements. But what you can do now that you have read this case is start a section of your outline about whether parties have entered into a contract. That is likely to be an issue on your exam. And you can put in rules about how there needs to be mutual assent to the terms of the contract. You can put in rules about how the law imputes to a person an intention that corresponds to the reasonable meaning of their words and acts. Those are rules that you learned from this case. And you can put an issue statement. If you see on your exam something where a party to a contract has a hidden intention about whether they want to enter into a contract or not, but they aren't saying it. They are acting in a way that necessarily shows it. Well, that might trigger you to go to this section of your outline and drop in to your exam answer immediately an issue statement and a rule statement, kind of like what you're learning in this case. So your issue statement might be something like an issue is whether this party intends to enter into a contract with mutual assent with this other party. Right? And then you copy in your rule statement about how the outward acts and words of a party is what a court will use to determine whether they intended to enter into a contract with mutual assent. All right, you've spotted the issue because you've seen something with some kind of hidden intention on the exam, and you've written down an issue statement, you've written down a rule statement, you wrote those in your outline already, they were already done. So, gosh, you've already done a lot of the hard work before walking into the exam room. Great job. Now your analysis. Now you're gonna do what the court did in Lucy v. Zemmer. You're going to look at the context, look at the state of the parties, look at what they're saying to each other, look at how the other party is acting on it afterwards, just like how the Lucy's acted. So you're gonna look at all those contacts and think about what are the parties like Lucy going to argue about whether there is a contract, the party who wants to enforce it. Well, they're gonna argue there was a mutual assent because of these words and acts that I'm seeing in the exam problem. But then the other party is going to argue there was no contract, there was no mutual assent to any agreement because of all these words and acts I see in the exam problem to suggest that that party did not actually intend to enter into a binding contract. And you might note, if something in the exam problem notes, oh, well, this party that might want to get out of the contract, they maybe didn't want to enter into it in the first place. Maybe they were joking, maybe they had misgivings about it, they weren't sure about whether they wanted to do it, they were hesitant. Well, you're gonna say, oh, that doesn't really matter. I, Professor, I see you're mentioning that, but we learned in Lucy v. Zemmer that it's the outward manifestations that matter. Now, maybe they did outwardly manifest. Maybe they said, I don't want to enter into this contract and didn't do it, didn't say the right things or write the right things down to make an offer. But in any event, that's how Lucy v. Zemmer should go into your outline for the exam. That's what kind of issue statement is going to fall under, that's what kind of rule statements you might write from this case, and that's the kind of analysis that you might go into of that particular issue if it comes up on your exam. So that's the kind of thing to look out for. All right, everybody, I hope you enjoyed this podcast. We will see you next time.

SPEAKER_01 20:03

That's it for today's episode of Law School Decoded. Visit us online at lawschooldecoded.com and make sure to subscribe. Until next time, keep decoding the law, one step at a time.