Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Lucy v. Zehmer
Citation:Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1954. 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516.
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
On December 20, 1952, while drinking alcohol in a bar, (Plaintiff) W.O. Lucy entered into a contract for the purchase of (Defendant) A.H. Zehmer’s farm. Lucy had asked Zehmer on numerous occasions if he could purchase Zehmer’s farm, and until now, Zehmer had refused. On this evening, Lucy offered Zehmer $50,000 for the farm. Zehmer did not believe that Lucy could afford this, so he agreed to enter into a contract, believing the negotiation to simply be a joke. After a lengthy discussion, the parties wrote the contract on the back of a bar receipt, and both Zehmer and his wife signed the agreement memorializing the sale of their farm to Lucy. When Lucy later produced the $50,000 for the farm, Zehmer refused to sell, stating that the agreement was intended to be a joke. Lucy sued Zehmer for specific performance.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.