Evan Daniel
Lucy v. Zehmer
Was the contract between W. O. Lucy (“Plantiff”) and A. H. and Ida Zehmer,
(“Defendants”) valid?
In the field of contracts, as generally elsewhere, we must look to the outward expression
of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention. The
law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and
acts.
The Court takes evidence that sufficiently applies to the rule that determined whether the
contract between Plaintiff and Defendants was valid. Evidence showed that Plaintiff and
Defendants had a conversation on the sale of Ferguson Farm for $50,000 at Defendant's home of
operations. In the conversation, was the appearance of a contract between Plaintiff and
Defendant A.H Zehmer. Before signature, Plaintiff objected to the terms of the first draft and
wanted both Defendants to sign a second draft agreeing on what was included in the sale and
provision for examination of title, thus completing the execution of such instrument. After the
signature of completed instrument, Plaintiff took possession of the instrument with no request or
suggestion from Defendants for the return of such document. Therefore, this transaction was
concluded as valid in either event where both parties were serious, or serious by Plaintiff and an
acceptance in secret jest by Defendants.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia determined that the contract was enforceable
and reversed the ruling of the lower court, which caused the sale of Ferguson Farm to Plaintiff.