| Course | BUSI 2001 Business Law |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Case brief |
| Length | About 610 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 2001 Week 2
Case Brief of Lucy v. Zehmer, Decided in Virginia in 1954: A Farm Sold on the Back of a Restaurant Check, a Seller Who Said It Was a Joke and the Objective Standard That Made the Contract Binding
Student Name
Walden University
BUSI 2001: Business Law
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Case Brief of Lucy v. Zehmer, Decided in Virginia in 1954: A Farm Sold on the Back of a Restaurant Check, a Seller Who Said It Was a Joke and the Objective Standard That Made the Contract Binding
Citation
Lucy v. Zehmer, decided in 1954 by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Reported at 196 Va. 493 and in the South Eastern Reporter at 84 S.E.2d 516.
Facts and Procedural Posture
W. O. Lucy had wanted for years to buy the Ferguson farm, about 471 acres in Dinwiddie County, Virginia, owned by A. H. Zehmer. On a December evening in 1952, the two men were drinking at a restaurant Zehmer operated. After a long conversation about the farm, Zehmer wrote on the back of a guest check an agreement to sell the farm to Lucy for $50,000, with title satisfactory to the buyer. He rewrote it at Lucy's request so that it read "we," and his wife signed it too. Lucy offered $5 to bind the deal; Zehmer refused it. The next day Lucy arranged financing and a title check, and Zehmer then said he had never intended to sell; he claimed the whole thing was a joke made while both were drinking. Lucy sued for specific performance. The trial court ruled for the Zehmers and dismissed the suit. Lucy appealed.
Issue
Is a written agreement to sell land enforceable when the seller claims he secretly meant it as a joke, but his words and conduct gave the buyer reason to believe he was serious?
Holding
Yes. The agreement was a binding contract, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the trial court and remanded the case for a decree of specific performance (Lucy v. Zehmer, 1954).
Reasoning
The court applied an objective test of assent. A person's intention to make a contract is judged by outward expression, what a reasonable person in the other party's position would understand from the words and acts, not by an unexpressed state of mind. Several facts pointed to a serious deal: the discussion lasted a long time, Zehmer rewrote the document to include his wife, the terms covered title, and Lucy behaved as a serious buyer the next day. If Zehmer meant it as a joke, he never said so in a way Lucy should have understood.
The court also rejected the intoxication defense. Although both men had been drinking, the evidence showed Zehmer understood what he was doing; he wrote and rewrote the agreement and later described the evening in detail. Intoxication voids a contract only when a party is so drunk as to be unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction.
Finally, the court found the price was not grossly inadequate and the transaction was not unfair, so specific performance, the usual remedy for land contracts, was appropriate.
Rule
A contract is formed when the parties' outward words and conduct show agreement, read as an ordinary, sensible observer would read them; a secret intention to joke does not prevent formation unless the other party knew or should have known of it. The same objective approach runs through modern contract law (American Law Institute, 1981).
Why the Case Matters in Business
Managers make statements in meetings, emails and texts that the other side may reasonably take as commitments. Lucy v. Zehmer is a reminder that "I didn't mean it" is not a defense if a reasonable listener would have understood the words as an agreement. Mallor et al. (2022) present the case as a leading illustration of the objective theory of contracts, and it explains why careful businesses mark drafts as "not an offer" until they intend to be bound.
References
American Law Institute. (1981). Restatement (second) of contracts.
Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954).
Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., & Langvardt, A. W. (2022). Business law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (18th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Reading the BUSI 2001 Week 2 instructions
In Week 2 you brief one assigned contract case. Use the standard parts: citation, facts, procedural history, issue, holding, reasoning and rule. Keep the facts to those the court relied on, and state the issue as a question a reader could answer yes or no. The holding answers that question for these parties; the rule states the principle the case stands for in terms that would apply to future disputes. In the reasoning, explain how the court got from the facts to the answer, including any facts it found decisive. Finish with a short section on why the case matters to a business manager, connecting the rule to an ordinary practice such as signing documents at a meeting.
How this BUSI 2001 Week 2 example is built
The brief cites the case in full and then sets out the facts: Lucy had long wanted the 471-acre Ferguson farm, Zehmer wrote and rewrote a sale agreement on a restaurant check, his wife signed it and Zehmer later claimed it was a joke. The procedural section notes that the trial court dismissed the suit and the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed. The issue asks whether a party's secret intent to joke prevents a contract when his words and acts show assent. The holding answers no. The reasoning lists the facts showing a serious transaction, citing the Restatement on manifestation of assent, and the rule follows in one sentence. The final section warns managers that informal writing can bind them.
Where the marks sit in the BUSI 2001 Week 2 rubric
Case briefs are evaluated on accuracy, structure and economy. Each part should appear in order and do its own job; a holding that repeats the facts or a rule that only restates the holding loses credit. The issue must be framed precisely enough that the holding answers it. Reasoning earns the most when it names the facts the court treated as decisive and explains why they mattered under the rule. A brief that relies on the court's own reasoning rather than outside commentary is stronger. The business section should apply the rule to a realistic practice. Length matters less than precision; one page per part is far too much.
BUSI 2001 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Go through the case two times: once for the story, once for the court's answer. On the second read, mark the sentence where the court states its holding and the facts it repeats when explaining why. Those facts belong in your reasoning section. Phrase the issue as a question with both the legal standard and the key fact in it. Then write the rule in words that would apply to a different case, removing the party names. Weak briefs copy long passages, confuse the holding with the rule or leave out how the case reached the court. If you are struggling with a particular case, tell us which one and we can walk through its holding with you.
Get a BUSI 2001 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the assigned decision, the brief template if the classroom distributes one, and the rubric, and one worked BUSI 2001 brief returns within 24-48 hours, free for a first sample. Because a brief is bound to the opinion it covers, the example is built on the case your section assigned rather than on a substitute chosen here.
More BUSI 2001 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- BUSI 2001 Week 1: Legal Question Discussion Post
- BUSI 2001 Week 3: Issue-Spotting Inventory
- BUSI 2001 Week 4: Non-Compete Rule Restatement
- BUSI 2001 Week 5: Authority Check Peer Response
- BUSI 2001 Week 6: Non-Compete Application Memo
- BUSI 2001 Week 7: Services Agreement Clause Reading
- BUSI 2001 Week 8: Six-Citation Source Audit
- BUSI 2001 Week 9: Opposing Argument and Response
- BUSI 2001 Week 10: Gateway Case Comparison
- BUSI 2001 Week 11: Contractor Classification Memo
- BUSI 3010 Week 2: Swimlane Process Map
- BUSI 3014 Week 2: Business Question Framing
- BUSI 3016 Week 2: Income Statement Line Read
- BUSI 4002 Week 2: Venture Idea Opportunity Screen
BUSI 2001 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free BUSI 2001 Week 2 sample paper?
The complete Lucy v. Zehmer brief is reproduced here, with every part from citation to business relevance.
What was the issue in Lucy v. Zehmer?
Whether a seller who claimed he was joking could avoid a contract when his words and conduct showed he was agreeing to sell the farm.
What did the court hold?
That a contract was formed, because intent is judged by outward expression, not by a secret intention that was never disclosed.
What is the rule in one sentence?
A person's words and acts, read as a sensible observer would read them, decide whether he agreed, not his unspoken intent.
Why does the case matter to a business manager?
Notes, emails and informal drafts signed during a negotiation can bind the company even if the signer thought they were preliminary.