Module Six Case Analysis Lucy v. Zehmer The contractual element Zehmer contended was missing was contractual capacity. Contractual capacity is the legal ability to enter into a lawful binding agreement (Kubasek et al., 2020, pp. 326). Zehmer argued that he was intoxicated when he made the agreement to sell his property and that the decision was made in a jest (Kubasek et al., 2020, pp. 347). Though both parties were intoxicated, Zehmer was aware of his actions and drew up a contract which he then signed. Zehmer failed to let the other party know his true intention and lost his farm due to it. Lucy stated that Zehmer handed him the contract in what appeared to be good faith, and he accepted it in what appeared to be good faith as well. Lucy then offered Zehmer $5 to seal their bargain (Kubasek et al., 2020, pp. 347). The ruling for Lucy v. Zehmer was ruled in favor of the plaintiff Lucy. The court concluded that both parties were not intoxicated to a point of not knowing their own actions and their contract was valid. Lucy was right to believe that their agreement was a serious business transaction, rather than a jest. Zehmer’s intentions did not line up with his actions which led Lucy to believe that the agreement was true, and the contract was legally binding. Both parties did not lack the mental capacity to write up a contract and Zehmer wrote the contract, signed it, and accepted the $5 to seal the bargain. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff because he believed that the agreement between the two were confirmed based on their expressions of their intentions which was communicated between both parties. I agree with the ruling for the plaintiff. Zehmer understood what he was doing when he drew up a contract for $50,000 for the sale of his farm. Based on the court findings, both parties were of sound mind when Zehmer wrote up that contract on a napkin and signed it. If Zehmer was serious about not selling his farm, he would have never signed that agreement and accepted that five dollars as a sign of good faith. He failed to clarify his intentions to Lucy, which was his own fault. The offer sounded good to him and he agreed that he would sell for that price point. If the defendant had no intention to sell, he would have never signed that contract and accepted the $5 from Lucy, which Lucy believed sealed the deal. A personal experience in which I have entered a contract that I did not think of as a binding contract was when I signed up for a gym membership at the age of 21. At that time 15 years ago, my understanding was that if I stopped my payments, my membership would end. I was wrong about that and I had to make payments regardless of how I interpreted the contract. I ended up paying for a year membership because at that time I did not know that I had entered a binding contract that lasted a year. The elements of the contract that were in place were the agreement and consideration. The agreement was to pay a fee and in return I was able to use the facility. The element that was missing was contractual capacity. The full extent of the contract was not clearly explained to me. I was under the impression that I would be able to end my contract whenever I wanted to with a 30-day notice period. However, that was not the case and I had to pay a full year’s membership.