this is the best analogy i’ve seen in this thread. it’s clearly a scam and you should all feel ashamed about defending it. jesus is watching, bro…
3 Likes
Ok fine. But not at all what you claimed earlier. In citing the case you claimed it shows that “BEING DRUNK ISNT ENOUGH TO INVALIDATE A CONTRACT.” That’s patently false. Being drunk IS enough to invalidate a contract, the question is what level of intoxication qualifies.
It absolutely does not
You’re reaching lol. Now you’re just arguing the semantics of “drunk”
Lucy v Zehmer is from the 50’s. Precedent stands until overturned. Subsequent cases have upheld that same standard and its pretty well established in RCL
1 Like
…no. Reread the statement again.
Being drunk, and only being drunk, doesn’t do anything to a contract. It isn’t a defeater all by itself. If you claim “but I was drunk!” the Court will just say “and…?” because you need more than the presence of alcohol to defeat a contract. You can be drunk, very very drunk, and still enter into a valid contract.
It absolutely does, it is Lucy’s understanding of Zehmer’s ability to make a serious contract that matters, so for Zehmer’s drunkenness to matter at all Zehmer would have to show that the drunkenness was severe enough to impair him and for Lucy to recognize that. Being drunk alone is irrelevant, being drunk and impaired is not.
That’s straight from Johnson v. Harmon.
…aaaaand we’ve moved on quite a bit. Capacity is the modern term in most jurisdictions, which, among many other factors, will look not at just the presence of alcohol, but the EFFECT it has. As antiquated as the 1876 language is, the heart of the matter is that you must lack CAPACITY since you need a meeting of the minds to form a valid contract.
You can be stinking drunk and enter into a valid contract.
You can be somewhat tipsy and unable to enter into a valid contract.
What matters is your capacity, which is fact specific, as well as the other tests for contract validity.
1 Like
That isn’t a scam.
Ignoring the obvious fact that that’s not how courts work… you’re incorrect. If your claim was " i was drunk" the court would say “to what degree.”
Thats not at all, even remotely, even kind of… the same thing.
1 Like
Thanks for weighing in man. Your contributions will no doubt be sang of for decades to come
1 Like
As will your reply.
…that’s what “and…?” implies. The fact you allege drunkenness is irrelevant, you have to show how that drunkenness actually impaired you or the other person. It isn’t even a matter of how many drinks you did or didn’t have since alcohol has a different effect on every person, ranging from seemingly coherent but black-out drunk to incoherent babbling after the first glass.
You don’t have any real experience in state courts do you?
Plenty of judges, particularly elected judges, are pretty damn casual in the courtroom and when they want you to keep adding more information to the record, they don’t always do so formally or even nicely. The same kind of indifference appears in lots of cases even at a federal level as I’ve recently experienced. The other side waved their arms about quite a bit about not making as many sales as they THINK they should have as a result of my client’s alleged trademark infringement… but loss of sales alone means jack-all, and the Federal Judge made that abundantly (and embarrassingly) clear at the hearing last week.
2 Likes
Am I a lawyer? No but clearly you are not either. I do have a BBA which usually include coarses in contract law and I’ve been involved in several civil suits in the course of running my business so I actually have a fair amount of experience in the courts, if not as a legal representative
You’re back-peddling now because you were pretty clearly wrong in your initial presentation of the case. You’ve moved the goalposts from “being drunk doesn’t invalidate a contract” to “well its not the alcohol that invalidates the contract, its the effect OF the alcohol” which is a pretty transparent reach
…which bar number would you like? State or Federal Patent?
Which is nice, but you’ve been wrong this entire time regarding contract law.
I haven’t back peddled an iota.
Being drunk doesn’t invalidate a contract. Period. End of. This statement is still accurate.
The follow-up, that is capacity is what actually matters, doesn’t render the first statement incorrect. This is very simple.
If you want to plead a defense of lack of mental capacity to enter into a valid contract and you:
- Argue you were stinking drunk because you knocked back 4 shots and 3 beers, which put you well above the legally intoxicated threshold, and say nothing more, YOU WILL MOST LIKELY LOSE YOUR DEFENSE
–VS–
- Argue you had alcohol that night along with new medication that had a severe adverse effect when mixed that you were unaware of, have no memory of the night, have no memory of how you got home, and have suffered severe medical issues after related to the mixture of alcohol and medication, YOU WILL MOST LIKELY WIN YOUR DEFENSE
Being drunk alone is not a defeater for a valid contract. Drunk contracts are still valid contracts if there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration that isn’t impaired by incapacity at any point. You can replace “drunk” with literally any other mental state and it would still be valid as it isn’t merely being drunk that matters.
4 Likes
You can enter into contracts while in various mental states. Look at diamond stores or bars and how they serve customers.
I’ll take either
According to you. Who have been objectively wrong so… 
Yea. Ok. 
This is just such an inane attempt at a backpedal lol. It’s like saying “shooting people isn’t illegal. Murder is illegal.” Just stop.
Now there is a subject I’m intimately familiar with and I assure you you’re incorrect. Dram shop laws exist for a reason
Diamond stores don’t sell the alcohol.
Bars thread the needle.
Both bars and Blizzard won’t do anything to change their models.
I have no idea what a Diamond store is. You just talking about off-premise? Either way, I’m not entirely sure how anything you’re saying is relevant
Being drunk is, by definition, being in a state of mental impairment. You’d better rethink that.
http://www.wright.edu/sites/www.wright.edu/files/page/attachments/Was%20I%20Raped.pdf
https://tuplerlaw.com/is-contract-signed-while-impaired-valid/
He’s gone so far down his semantic rabbithole in an attempt to backpedal I think he’s completely lost at this point, lol
In what shariah law country do you live where there is a legal limit on the alcohol you can consume?
Legal intoxication is a specific level of BAC (though it may vary slightly by state.) That’s not putting a limit on what can be consumed, it’s stating at what level you’re considered legally impaired.
1 Like
Jewelry store. Often they will have beer/wine to serve potential customers.
Also, excuse my ignorance on dram shop laws, but it looks like they are only for protection in the event of a crime, not contract.
I have taken a business/contract class where it was taught being drunk and entering into a contract would be upheld. This can be done by getting signatures, finger prints and witnesses observing you accepting the deal and that the burden is on you to prove you were too drunk. Which is difficult/impossible.