Business Contract Law Business Sequence

Question: Describe about the Business Contract Law for Business Sequence. Answer: 1. In this case it was written by Archibal C. Buchanan in a unanimous decision from the court stating that there is a record which suggests that the Zehmer was not intoxicated to that level as to where he would not be able to comprehend the consequence and nature of the instrument that had been executed by him (Lucy v. Zehmer, [1954]). The situation that surrounds the said transaction between Zehmer and Lucy is such that it was justified on the part of Lucy to believe that the business transaction for the sale of land was a serious one and not made a jest which was made merely by Zehmer. When intent for entering the said contract is examined, the courts viewed the standard of a reasonable person meaning thereby the actions and words which is the outward objective expression that would lead any reasonable person to believe that there was an intention on the part of the other party to enter into a legally binding contract. Though there was a contention by the defendant in this case that the contract had been made by him as only a jest or that there was no capacity that he had at the time of formation of the contract, the very fact that he went to the trouble of writing down the entire agreement, which specified the consideration that would be required to be made, the involved parties to the transaction, the contracts subject matter, the issue of title was addressed and also the consent of his wife was taken as well. This entire circumstance would lead any party to believe that there was a contract that was genuine and also valid before the court of law. Thus, according to the judge the reason of intoxication was not satisfactory. 2. It is provided by the objective theory of contracts that the determination of a mutual consent to the contract is done by referring to the manifestations and acts that are external and not by the subjective evidence which is there being the intention that is internal (Mautner, 2002). In more simple words it means that the formation of a contract depends on what is required to be communicated and not what had been only thought (Perillo, 2000). It is provided by the modern objective theory that the intents objective manifestation by a party is required to be viewed in general from point of vantage of a reasonable person who is in the other partys position (foot note 3. The sale of the real estate was discussed between the two parties. It was offered by Lucy for buying the plot, and there is no dispute to the fact that this was a serious offer. The fact that Zehmer was concealing externally that there was no intention for selling the property. It was testified by Zehmer at the trial that there was only needling by him and he did not think that the property would be afforded by Lucy. It was determined by the court that there was a binding contract because any person who was reasonable in the position of Lucy would have believed that there was a genuine intention of Zehmer for selling the property. It was held by the court that there was entitlement on Lucy for relying on what would have been thought reasonably of what was meant when outwardly there was agreement by Zehmer to sell the said property. This holding of the court was consistent entirely with the objective theory contract. References Lucy v. Zehmer[1954]196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516. Mautner, M. (2002). Contract, Culture, Compulsion, or: What Is So Problematic in the Application of Objective Standards in Contract Law?.Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 3(2). Perillo, J. (2000). The Origins of the Objective Theory of Contract Formation and Interpretation.SSRN Electronic Journal.