Defendant Zehmer wrote a contract on a napkin to sell land.
Plaintiff Lucy tried to enforce the contract.
Zehmer claimed he was joking.
Rule of Law
A contract is enforceable if a party reasonably believes the other party intends to enter into an agreement, regardless of the other party's undisclosed intention.
Facts
Plaintiffs sued Defendant for specific performance of a contract to sell 471.6 acres of land for $50,000.
The contract was written while the parties were drinking.
Zehmer signed the contract but later claimed it was a joke.
A waitress testified that Zehmer said he was joking.
Plaintiff secured funds from his brother to fulfill the contract.
Zehmer later reiterated he was joking after the contract was made.
Zehmer's attorneys admitted he was not too drunk to make a contract.
Issue
Does a valid contract exist?
Holding
Yes. The court held that a valid contract existed.
The mental assent of parties is not required if their words/acts have only one reasonable meaning.
Plaintiff was justified in believing the transaction was serious.
Discussion
The court focused on whether Plaintiff had a reasonable belief in the contract's validity.
The decision moved away from the "meeting of the minds" standard for contract validity.
Key Takeaways
Actual intent is less important than the reasonable belief of the other party when determining contract enforceability.
The case illustrates the objective theory of contract formation.