Cherry sues Sam for breach of contract.Sam proves that she was inoxicated when the agreement was excecuted and

Question

she did not understand the nature of the agreement. Is the contract enforceable?
Please explain.
Thanks

Answer 1

Cherry's K with sam is voidable, not void. It is voidable by Cherry, not Sam. Therefore she has the ability to enforce the contract with Sam. So his finding does not help him in the law suit.

Answer 2

I disagree with the above answers, because they assume a fact that you haven't told us.

Generally, a contract signed by someone who is intoxicated is voidable at the option of the intoxicated party IF the other party had reason to know of the intoxication AT THE TIME OF contract formation.

Here, although Sam can now prove that Cherry was intoxicated at the time of execution, we don't know if Sam knew at the time of execution that Cherry was, in fact, intoxicated. Sam could have discovered this afterwards, from Sherry or another source.

So the other answerers would be correct if Sam indeed knew at the time of execution. The contract could be enforced against Sam by Cherry, but Sam couldn't enforce against Cherry unless she allowed him to. But if Sam didn't know at that time, then the contract can be enforced against either party.

Somewhat related is Cherry's inability to understand the nature of the agreement, due to intoxication:

If Cherry lacked an understanding of the nature of the agreement because she suffered from a mental disability at the time, illness, etc., then that would be a separate gounds for voiding the contract.

Although intoxication can create an inability to understand the nature of a contract, courts generally treat intoxication and mental disabilities differently. As my old contracts professor explained, judges and legislatures believe that intoxication is a somewhat voluntary action, and therefore individuals should have some degree of personal responsibility for their actions while intoxicated.

I understand this may appear to be at odds with the doctrine that we punish people for knowingly taking advantage of intoxicated people through contract, but if you think about it more, it really isn't. After all, if the other party doesn't know and doesn't have reason to know that you're drunk, the contract can still be enforced against you.

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

Sounds like an exercise in law school, and I'm no lawyer nor a law student. But still, I don't see where Sam can breach a contract based upon his opinion that she was intoxicated and couldn't understand the nature of the agreement.

If he WERE able to show that, he's also be showing that he knowingly engaged in fraud and she'd have even more of a case against him.

Answer 4

Songbyrd is correct.

The intoxication defense applies to Cherry, not Sam, in voiding the contract.

Thus, Sam cannot use Cherry's intoxication to void the contract, since he signed the contract knowingly and willingly.

Thus, the contract is enforceable, absent Cherry's desire to void it if she was, indeed, so intoxicated that she did not knowingly understand what she was agreeing to.