Page 1 of 1
Question about intoxicated persons on contract?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:13 pm
by bbwinston
Betty Galloway, an alcoholic, signed a settlement agreement upon her divorce from her husband, Henry Galloway. Henry, in Betty’s absence in court, stated that she had lucid intervals from her alcoholism, had been sober for two months, and was lucid when she signed the settlement agreement on September 22, 1978. Betty moved only to vacate the settlement agreement on September 27, 1978, and after she had retained present legal counsel. On January 23, 1979, Betty was declared incompetent to handle her personal and her affairs, and a guardian and conservator was appointed. Betty, through her guardian sued to have settlement agreement voided. Who wins?
Re: Question about intoxicated persons on contract?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:20 pm
by lawnerd1
Are you posting a take home contracts exam?
Re: Question about intoxicated persons on contract?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:23 pm
by bbwinston
lawnerd1 wrote:Are you posting a take home contracts exam?
No, this is just a simple question from my textbook
Re: Question about intoxicated persons on contract?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:33 pm
by NonTradHealthLaw
281 N.W.2d 804
Re: Question about intoxicated persons on contract?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:44 pm
by Ty Webb
Too much explanation of the rule, not enough analysis.
Argue both sides more vehemently.
Re: Question about intoxicated persons on contract?
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:03 am
by ahduth
Ty Webb wrote:Too much explanation of the rule, not enough analysis.
Argue both sides more vehemently.
Yeah, I don't want a win or a loss, I want a crystallization of the situation that allows us to pinpoint where the law should sit. Unless I'm missing something, a decision one way or the other is lacking significant facts and would therefore require a jury?