According to The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Every person is competent to contract who is of age of majority according to the law to which he is subject of sound mind is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject
WHAT IS A SOUND MIND FOR THE PURPOSES OF
CONTRACTING?
According to The Indian Contract Act, 1872 A person
is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests Thus, A person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind.
WHAT IS A SOUND MIND FOR THE PURPOSES OF
CONTRACTING? Illustrations (a) A patient in a lunatic asylum, who is at intervals of sound mind, may contract during those intervals. (b) A sane man, who is delirious from fever or who is so drunk that he cannot understand the terms of a contract or form a rational judgment as to its effect on his interests, cannot contract whilst such delirium or drunkenness lasts.
CASE IN POINT: Lucy v. Zehmer (1954)
Defendant A. H. Zehmer and his wife, Ida S. Zehmer, owned a tract of land of 471.6 acres, known as the Ferguson Farm Plaintiff W. O. Lucy had previously expressed interest in purchasing the farm. Zehmer once had orally agreed to sell the farm to Lucy but later reconsidered and declined to complete the sale On December 20, 1952, Lucy entered the restaurant owned by Zehmer with a bottle of whiskey in his hand. He and Zehmer consumed a significant quantity of distilled spirits and discussed the possible sale of the farm Zehmer wrote on the back of the restaurant's receipt stating, "We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for
CASE IN POINT: Lucy v. Zehmer (1954)
The next day, Lucy spoke to his brother, J.C. Lucy, about the purchase, and he hired an attorney to examine the title After the attorney assured Lucy that the title was clear, she wrote a letter to Zehmer asking when he intended to close the deal In his reply, Zehmer insisted that he had never intended to sell the farm and that the note signed by him and his wife was written in jest, consistent with the jovial atmosphere and drunken camaraderie the parties were sharing that evening Zehmer claimed on the witness stand that the circumstances were such that Lucy should have known he was too inebriated to agree to the sale
CASE IN POINT: Lucy v. Zehmer (1954) - Decision
The judge wrote for the unanimous court holding that the record suggested that Zehmer was not intoxicated to the point of being unable to comprehend the nature And consequences of the instrument he executed. The circumstances surrounding the transaction were such that Lucy was justified in believing that it was a serious business transaction, rather than a mere jest. Buchanan further held that specific performance was the proper remedy for the plaintiff
Holding A person cannot set up that he was merely jesting when his