Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Lucy v. Zehmer
Supreme Ct of VA, 1954
Facts: Lucy () sues Zehmer () for specific performance of K. owns Ferguson farm,
sold to for $50,000 cash when he wrote K on back of restaurant receipt. claims it
was all in jest, they were drinking, he had no intention to actually sell farm. claims it
was real and valid K, took actions like calling his lawyer, securing $ for payment, and
actually believed K was binding
Procedure: Lower Ct ruled failed to establish right to specific performance, dismissed.
Appealed to this court.
Issue: Whether K was valid and binding if claims his intention was not to sell (in jest).
Holding: Yes. K is valid based on outward expression of a person manifesting his
intention rather than his secret and unexpressed intention
Reasoning: There appeared to be a good faith offer and good faith acceptance,
followed by delivery of K. The actions of have but one reasonable meaning, and his
undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he
attaches to his manifestations is known to other party. (see restatement 71).
Disposition: entitled to specific performance of K sued on. Reversed & remanded.
The Offer
Hawkins v. McGee
Supreme Ct of NH, 1929
Facts: H suing Dr. M for breach of K. H had scar on hand, but hand was usable. Dr. M said
he would operate (skin graft) & H would be in hospital for 3-4 days then back to work
w good hand. Dr. M also said that he would guarantee to make the hand one
hundred percent perfect. Evidence that he repeatedly solicited opportunity to
experiment w skin grafting. Jury was instructed that they could find for H for (1) pain
& suffering & (2) for injury above what he had before.
Procedure: Trial Ct directed verdict for Mr. M on negligence. Jury awarded H $3,000 for
breach of K. Ct said verdict too high, remit anything over $500. H refused, verdict set
aside.
Issue: (1) whether the statements regarding medical procedure constitute a promise? (2)
What is the appropriate formula for damages?
Holding: (1) 3-4 days statement was an opinion, and therefore not a promise & J as
matter of law appropriate. Guarantee statement shows intention & inducement for
granting consent for operation, and is a promise.
(2) Measure of damages should be difference bt value of perfect hand as promised
and the value of hand in present condition including consequences w.in contemplation
of parties when K was made.
Reasoning: (1) 3-4 days statement was predictionno reasonable person would think
it was K under reasonable person test. The guarantee statement, bc of repeat
solicitation, reasonable basis that words show intention that they should be accepted
at face value, that it was inducement to get consent to operate, and was accepted by
H.
(2) Purpose of damages is to put in position he would have been had kept
his K. Damages based on what should have given . So perfect hand as
promised minus hand in present condition is damages (Expectation Model). Pain &
suffering not consideration bc it was price willing to pay for good hand. Also
prejudicial to to submit to jury damage for change in worsened condition
Reliance model, would recover less).
Disposition: New Trial. NOTE: they ended up settling.
Leonard v. Pepsico
SDNY, 1999
Facts: L saw ad for Pepsi that featured Harrier Jet for 7,000,000 pepsi points. Ad for
pomo campaign catalogue of items to be bought w Pepsi points. Jet not listed in
catalogue or order form. Directions say merchandise may be ordered only w original
order form. If lacking points, you can buy them for 10 cents/point. L submitted order
form, 15 original pepsi points, check for $700,008.50, & wrote at bottom of form 1
Harrier Jet. Pepsi wrote him ltr explaining not included in catalogue or order form,
only available items redeemable. L writes back saying commercial offers jet & must
honor commitment. Ad co says clearly a joke to make commercial funny, no
reasonable person would think offer was real. L sues for specific performance.
Procedure: Pepsi moves for Summ J (FRCP 56).
Issue: Did the commercial constitute an offer?