Do you think the court made a fair determination in this case of LUCY VS ZEHMER? Would you suggest that the precedent be revisited by the court and changed given the age of the case? Explain. Support your answer with the material for this week. Also if you think it should be changed what would you suggest the change should be?

In the case Lucy v. Zehmer (1954), we learn that the mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. In this case, Zehmer signed a note promising to sell his farm to Lucy while he was drunk. Afterwards, he refused to proceed.

The court stated that Lucy acted reasonably when he expected to receive the farm as had been stipulated in the contract. Moreover, the court found evidence of the fact that Zehmer was not drunk enough to not know what he was doing.

I believe that the facts of this case do not need to be changed. It is important that undisclosed intention remains immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning is known to the other party. This is because people need to be able to trust a person's word and intention when a contract is created. Under the objective theory of contracts, this sale contract should be considered a serious business transaction.

the correct answer would be b, when, queen, calder hall and london.

explanation:

we always capitalize words when a paragraph or sentence is starting, when an important name is used, when a place is being written, or simply when a noun is used, etc. so in this sentence, sentence is starting from 'when', so it will be written in capital letters. secondly, queen is considered to be an important person, so it will also be written in capital letter. next, the name of the town is mentioned, i-e calder hall, which will also be written in capital letters. in the last,   city name is being used, 'london', which will also be written in capital letters. so option b is the most appropriate one.

answer; the above statement/question is ( true);