GetHomeworkDone.comPosted in Assignment Questions
Need Help with Your Paper? Get a Customized Answer
Get a Customized Answer: Order Now.

John Doe                                                                                                                                      4L

johndoe@gmail.com                                                                          Wills, Trusts, and Estates

June 21, 2020                                                                                                              Case Briefs

Lucy v. Zehmer

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1954

TOPIC:                Intent to Contract

CASE:                 Lucy v. Zehmer. 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d, 516. (1954)

FACTS:               Lucy (plaintiff) sued the Zehmers (defendants) to enforce a contract to sell a farm owned by the Zehmers. Mr. Zehmer drafted a contract selling the farm to Lucy for $50,000. Zehmer and his wife both signed the contract, as did Lucy. When Lucy offered to bind the contract with partial payment of $5.00, Mr. Zehmer refused to take her money, saying the entire transaction was made in jest, that in fact, he was drunk.

HISTORY:           Trial court held for Zehmer. Lucy appeals.

ISSUE:                Was the Zehmers’ offer made in jest so that there was no valid contract formed, leaving Lucy unable to recover for breach of contract?

RULING:             No. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered specific performance of the contract.

RATIONALE:     The court found evidence justifying Lucy’s belief that Zehmer was acting in good faith and intended to be bound. For instance, the parties discussed the contract for forty minutes, including what was to be included in the sale and provisions for the examination of title. The court also concluded that Zehmer was not drunk to the extent of being unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction. For instance, he changed the first contract to include his wife’s signature.

RULE:                 Actual mental assent of the parties is not required to form a contract. If the words or other acts of the parties have only one reasonable meaning, then an undisclosed intention is immaterial.

Wills, Trusts, and Estates Course Syllabus                                                                                       

List of Required Cases for the Wills, Trusts, and Estates Case Briefs Assignment

  1. Magoun v. Ill. Tr. & Sav. Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 18 S. Ct. 594 (1898). (Constitutional Rights, Succession, and Taxes)
  • Parks v. Fink, 173 Wash. App. 366, 293 P.3d 1275 (2013). (Prof essional Responsibility: Duty to Intended Beneficiaries)
  • A. v. B., 158 N.J. 51, 726 A.2d 924 (1999). (Conflict of Interest; Reciprocal Wills)
  • Shaw Family Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). (Posthumously Acquired Rights)
  • Hall v. Vallandingham, 75 Md. App. 187, 540 A.2d 1162 (1988). (Adoptees and Inheritance)
  • Fleming v. Morrison, 187 Mass. 120, 72 N.E. 499 (1904). (Testamentary Intent)
  • Wellin v. Wellin, 135 F. Supp. 3d 502 (D.S.C. 2015). (Fraud and T ortious Interference with Inheritance)
  • Guardianship & Alts., Inc. v. Jones (In re Estate of Horton) , 325 Mich. App. 325, 925 N.W.2d 207 (2018). (Formalities; Electronic Wills)
  • Thompson v. Royall, 163 Va. 492, 175 S.E. 748 (1934). (Revocation)
  1. Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 428 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). (Life Insurance Policies)
  1. Matter of Maliszewski, 2007 NY Slip Op 6007, 42 A.D.3d 737, 839 N.Y.S.2d 586 (App. Div. 3rd Dept.). (Creation of Trust)
  1. Estate of Heggstad, 16 Cal. App. 4th 943, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433 (1993). (Transfer of Property to Trust)
  1. Hurley v. Hurley, 107 Mich. App. 249, 309 N.W .2d 225 (1981). (Spendthrift Trusts and Child Support)
  1. Shenandoah Valley Nat’l Bank v. Taylor, 192 Va. 135, 63 S.E.2d 786 (1951). (Charitable Trusts)
  1. Ferrell-French v. Ferrell, 691 So. 2d 500 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997). (Powers of Appointment)
  1. Loring v. Marshall, 396 Mass. 166, 484 N.E.2d 1315 (1985). (Powers of Appointment)
  1. Usry v. Farr, 274 Ga. 438, 553 S.E.2d 789 (2001). (Vesting of Interests: Construction and Interpretation)
  1. Farkas v. Williams, 5 Ill. 2d 417, 125 N.E.2d 600 (1955). (Revocable Trusts)
  1. Dickerson v. Union Nat’l Bank, 268 Ark. 292, 595 S.W .2d 677 (1980). (Rule against Perpetuities)
  • Feinberg v. Feinberg (In re Estate of Feinberg), 235 Ill. 2d 256, 335 Ill. Dec. 863, 919 N.E.2d 888 (2009). (Religious Restrictions)

List of Required Cases for the Professional Responsibility Case Briefs Assignment

  1. Ames v. State Bar, 8 Cal.3d 910 (1973). (Standards of Conduct)
  • Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, 42 Cal.4th 807, 171 P.3d 1092, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 (2007). (Receipt of Privileged Documents)
  • In Re DeBartolo, 111 Ill.2d 1, 94 Ill.Dec. 700, 488 N.E.2d 947 (1986). (Character Fitness)
  • Kriegsman v. Kriegsman, 150 N.J.Super. 474, 375 A.2d 1253 (1977). (Withdrawing from Representation)
  • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). (Advertising)
  • Alexander v. Cahill, No. 5:07-CV-117 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2007). (Advertising online)
  • Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. V. Scott, 777 P.2d 394 (1989). (Reasonableness of Attorney Fee)
  • In re Kelley, 52 Cal.3d 487, 276 Cal.Rptr. 375, 801 P.2d 1126 (1990). (Drunk Driving and Attorney Competence)
  • People v. Meredith, 29 Cal.3d 682, 175 Cal.Rptr. 612, 631 P.2d 46 (1981). (Confidences)
  1. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986). (Candor)
  1. Matter of Vincenti, 92 N.J. 591, 458 A.2d 1268 (1983). (Fairness in T rial)
  1. City of Seattle v. Erickson, 188 Wash.2d 721, 398 P.3d 1124 (2017). (Bias)
  1. Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co., 183 CalApp.4th 776, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 (2010). (Conflict of Interest)
  1. Flatt v. Superior Court (Daniel), 9 Cal.4th 275 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537; 885 P.2d 950 (1994). (Conflict of Interest)

List of Required Cases for the Constitutional Law Case Briefs Assignment

  1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). (Judicial Review)
  • Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9Wheat.) 1, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1834). (Commerce Clause)
  • National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012). (Commerce Clause and mandated health insurance)
  • Immigration and Naturalization Services v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). (Legislative Veto)
  • Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). (Due Process)
  • Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 451 L.Ed. 256 (1896). (Eq ual Protection)
  • Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). (Equal Protection)
  • Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978). (Suspect Classes)
  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). (Abortion)
  1. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015). (Fundam ental Rights)
  1. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969). (Advocacy of Illegal Conduct)
  1. N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958). (Right of Association)
  1. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). (Symbolic Speech: “Flag burning”)
  1. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (1972). (Freedom of Religion)
  1. Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). (Religiously Based Exceptions)

List of Required Cases for the Evidence Case Briefs Assignment

  1. Knapp v. State, 168 Ind. 153, 79 N.E. 1076 (Ind. 1907). (Introduction to Relevance)
  • Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948). (Character Evidence)
  • Vinyard v. Vinyard Funeral Home, Inc., 435 S.W.2d 392 (1968). (Hearsay)
  • Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 54 S.Ct.22, 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933). (Exceptions to Hearsay)
  • United States v. Copelin, 996 F.2d 379 (1993) (Impeachment)
  • Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980) (Marital Privileges)
  • Hill v. Skinner, 81 Ohio App. 375, 79 N.E.2d 787 (1947) (W itness Competency)
  • United States v. Amado-Nuñez, 357 F.3d 1119 (2004). (Judicial Notice)
  • State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65, 560 A.2d 1198 (N.J. 1989). (Expert Opinion)
  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (Scientific Evidence)
Need Help with Your Assignment? Let us Help you
Place Your Order

We guarantee you the following if you order your paper with us

High Quality Papers

All papers are written by ENL (US, UK, AUSTRALIA) writers with vast experience in the field. We perform a quality assessment on all orders before submitting them.

Timely Delivery

Do you have an urgent order?  We have more than enough writers who will ensure that your order is delivered on time. 

100% Original

We provide plagiarism reports for all our custom written papers. All papers are written from scratch.

24/7 Customer Support

Contact us anytime, any day, via any means if you need any help. You can use the Live Chat, email, or our provided phone number anytime.

Confidential and Secure

We will not disclose the nature of our services or any information you provide to a third party.

Stressed? We got you covered
Assignment Help Services
Money-Back Guarantee

Get your money back if your paper is not delivered on time or if your instructions are not followed.

We Guarantee the Best Grades
Assignment Help Services