Zehmer said no. Lucy said, “I bet you wouldn`t take $50,000 for this place.” Zehmer replied, “Yes, I would; You would not give fifty. Lucy said he would and told Zemmer to write an agreement to that effect. Zehmer took a restaurant check and wrote on the back, “I hereby agree to sell Ferguson Farm to W.O. Lucy for $50,000.” Lucy told him he had better change it to “We” because Mrs. Zehmer had to sign it too. Zehmer then tore up what he had written, wrote the agreement quoted above, and asked Mrs. Zehmer, who was ten or twelve feet away at the other end of the counter, to sign it. Ms.
Zehmer said she would do it for $50,000 and signed it. Zehmer brought it back and gave it to Lucy, who offered him $5, which Zehmer refused, saying, “You don`t need to give me money, you signed the deal there from both of us.” [28] At no time before the contract was entered into, Zehmer had indicated to Lucy, in word or deed, that he was not serious about the sale of the farm. They had long argued about it and discussed their terms, as Zehmer admitted. Lucy testified that if there was a joke, it was to pay $50,000 that night. The contract and the evidence show that he was not expected to pay the money that night. Zehmer said that after signing the letter, he put it on the counter in front of Lucy. Lucy said Zehmer gave it to her. In any event, there was an offer in good faith and acceptance in good faith, followed by the performance and apparent delivery of a written contract. Both said Lucy put the handwriting in her pocket and then offered Zehmer $5 to seal the deal. Only then, even among the defendants` evidence, was anything said or done to suggest that the case was a joke. Both Zehmers testified that when Zehmer asked his wife to sign, he whispered that it was a joke so Lucy wouldn`t hear and that it wasn`t intended for him to hear.
At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the leading source of free legal information and resources on the Internet. Contact us. Apparent authority within the meaning of Article 2.03 derives from a person`s manifestation that another person is authorized to act with legal consequences for the person making the manifestation if a third party has reasonable grounds to believe that the actor is authorized and that the belief is due to the demonstration. (2) A natural person who expresses consent to a transaction has full legal capacity to enter into contractual obligations, unless he or she is The idea of appealing against a person who has broken his or her promise appeals to most people. However, the “adverse confidence” of the promisor (the person to whom the promise is made) must be reasonable and foreseeable for the promisor (the person who made the promise) at the time of his or her declaration. If the Promisor has taken actions that he could not foresee, he is not obliged to keep the promise. PROMISE, contr. A commitment where the promisor enters into a contract with another to do or do something for the benefit of the latter. 2. When a promise is reduced to the form of a written agreement under seal, it is called an alliance.
3. To be binding on the promisor, the promise must be made on the basis of sufficient consideration – however, if it is made without consideration, it may be binding in foro conscious, it is not legally binding because it is nudum pactum. Rutherf. Inst. 85; 18 Eng. C.L. Rep. 180, note a; Merl. Rep. H.T. 4. When a promise is made, everything that is said at that time must be taken into account; So if a person promises to pay everything they owe, accompanied by a denial that they owe anything, no action will lie to enforce such a promise.
15 Wend. 187. 5. And if the promise is conditional, the condition must be fulfilled before it becomes binding. 7 John. 36. See condition. Promises are explicit or implicit. Vide Undertaking, and 5 East, 17 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B. & A.
595. A contract is a promise or set of promises that the law remedies or recognizes the performance of which the law recognizes as an obligation in any way.