Lucy V. Zehmer Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia Essay Example for Free

Lucy V. Zehmer imperious Court of Appeals of Virginia EssayFACTSW.O. Lucy, the plaintiff, filed suit against A.H. and Ida Zehmer, the suspects, to compel the Zehmers to transfer title of their property known as Ferguson bring up to the Lucys for 50,000$ as the Zehmers ad allegedly agreed to do. The families had known each other for many years and the Lucys had assay to buy the facility countless times, but to no appeal. After a night of drinking and badgering, W.O. Lucy was up to(p) to entice Zehmer into writing up an arrangement that stated Zehmer would sell Ferguson Farm to Lucy for 50,000$. Later, Lucy sued Zehmer to compel him to go with with the sale. Zehmers argument centered on him being drunk and that the agreement was in jest hence the agreement was unenforceable. The trial courtyard agreed with Zehmer, Lucy appealed.ISSUEIf a contract is signed by both the defendant and plaintiff parties, would the contract be considered unenforceable if one of the parties consi ders the writings in jest? decisiveness no. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the rulings of the lower court saying that the writing was an enforceable contract. REASONThe court acknowledged that the writing was a contract. The fact that it was under consideration for forty or more proceeding before it was signed. The fact that Lucy objected to the first write up because it was written in the singular the discussion as to what was to be included in the sale, the provision for the examination of the title, the completeness of the instrument that was executed. The taking possession of it by Lucy without petition or suggestion by either defendant that he give it back, are facts that show that the death penalty of the contract was a serious business transaction rather than a casual one.BASIC applied science CORPORATION v. AMAZONAppeals Court of Massachusetts, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 29,878 N.E.2d (2008).FACTSBasis Technology Corporation, the plaintiff, filed suit against Amaz on.com, Inc. The plaintiff company was trusty for creating software and provided technical service for Amazons Japanese-Language Website. Their agreement allowed for separately negotiated contracts so that the plaintiff company could provide supernumerary services for Amazon. In 1999, the two entities entered into stock purchase agreements. Amazon later objected to securities that Basis sold. Basis sued for motley claims including the securities and for failing to pay for additional services Basis provided that werent in the original agreement.During trial, it seemed as if the parties had colonized based off a series of e-mails but Amazon reneged and the trial judge ruled against Amazon, which indeed appealed. ISSUECan a settlement be reached, and then be broken by plainly one party even if the two parties were butt againsted by such a settlement? DECISIONYes. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the trial courts finding that Amazon intended to be bound by the terms of the March e-mail. It constituted a complete and unambiguous statement of the parties desire to be bound by the settlement terms.