Youtube Exercise » English Grammar Homework

Cold-Calling in Law School: Lucy v. Zehmer

University of Virginia School of Law

15K views 8 months ago

Warm-up Questions

What do you think “cold-calling” means in a law school class?
From the title, what do you think the case “Lucy v. Zehmer” is about?
What kinds of misunderstandings could happen when people make agreements?

Up Next

How To Terraform Venus (Quickly) Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
A Simple Way to Break a Bad Habit | Judson Brewer | TED TED
Have you ever had an imaginary friend? Watch this TED-Ed
World Religions for Kids | What Are the Major World Religions? | Twinkl USA Twinkl Teaching Resources – United States
How to Pass ANY English Speaking Test! E2 English

Start With: Word Definition

Order: Alphabetical Random

…

Cold-Calling in Law School: Lucy v. Zehmer

1) Agreement basics + the story of the farm deal (00:00 – 08:34)

Transcript will load here…

1. According to the speaker, an agreement in contract law is usually broken down into which two parts?

Intent and damages
Consideration and breach
Offer and acceptance
Title and delivery

2. What remedy is Lucy trying to get from the court?

A criminal punishment for Zehmer
A refund of the $5 payment
Specific performance (a court order to transfer the land)
Money damages only

3. Why did the appellate court say there WAS a binding contract?

Because the law uses an objective test based on outward actions
Because Zehmer privately admitted it was serious
Because Lucy had wanted the farm for many years
Because alcohol automatically voids contracts

Cold-Calling in Law School: Lucy v. Zehmer

2) Objective vs. subjective intent + intoxication defense (08:34 – 22:14)

Transcript will load here…

1. Why does the class say the law avoids relying on a person’s subjective mindset in contract disputes?

Because only juries can consider intent, not judges
Because subjective intent is always easy to prove
Because subjective intent is illegal in contract law
Because it would encourage dishonesty and be hard for courts to investigate

2. In general, when can intoxication prevent a contract from being formed (as described here)?

Only if the person signs in a restaurant
Only if the other party is also drunk
Only if the person is so extremely incapacitated they cannot reasonably agree
Whenever someone has any alcohol

3. Why might it matter whether the other party knows how intoxicated the defendant is?

Because it relates to good faith and whether the other party was taking advantage
Because a contract is valid only if both parties are sober
Because the court wants to punish drinking
Because contract law requires witnesses

Cold-Calling in Law School: Lucy v. Zehmer

3) Side issues + how judges decide “objective truth” + broader theories of law (22:14 – 32:46)

Transcript will load here…

1. Was Lucy’s attempt to pay $5 legally necessary to create consideration in this deal (according to the discussion)?

Yes, because land contracts always require a down payment
No, because consideration is not required in contract law
No, they were already trading things of value (farm for $50,000)
Yes, without the $5 there is no contract

2. What does the quoted rule say courts must look to in contracts?

The outward expression of a person as manifesting their intention
A person’s secret and unexpressed intention
Only what is written in a textbook
Only what the defendant later claims in court

3. In the Toyota hypothetical, why does the speaker say it’s an “easy application” of the objective test?

Because the law bans hypothetical examples
Because money damages would be easier than specific performance
Because most people would interpret “Toyota” as the car, not something else
Because the judge can read minds in simple cases

Cold-Calling in Law School: Lucy v. Zehmer

Transcript will load here…

1. What is the central legal issue in Lucy v. Zehmer as discussed in the video?

Whether criminal law applies to private bargains
Whether there was enough offer and acceptance for a real agreement, or whether it was just a joke
Whether the price of land was too high to be legal
Whether the farm was located 100 miles away

2. What does the “objective test” focus on in deciding whether a contract exists?

Which party is richer
What the parties secretly intended
Whether the contract was fair
What a reasonable person would understand from words and actions

3. Why might the law prefer an objective standard over a subjective one?

It makes contracts impossible to enforce
It requires less writing and fewer signatures
It is more predictable and reduces the chance people can escape deals by claiming hidden intent
It guarantees the same outcome in every case

Discussion Questions

Discuss the ideas from this video

Cold-Calling in Law School: Lucy v. Zehmer

Do you agree with the objective test in contract law, or do you think courts should consider what someone “really meant” inside their head? Why?
Have you ever agreed to something that later turned into a misunderstanding? What caused the misunderstanding?
Should intoxication ever allow someone to escape a contract? What limits would you set?
In real life, what actions make an agreement feel “serious” rather than a joke (for example: writing it down, signatures, witnesses, payment)?