Perhaps this hinges on whether there is a legal concept of “invalidating” testimony, something that is distinct from giving people reason to question its truthfulness.
Being known to be drunk and/or high would certainly give people reason to question the truthfulness.
Is there some separate “invalidation” beyond this?
This had to be shared (30 seconds):
It strikes me (a year and-a-half later) that Lucy v. Zehmer would seem to imply that a contract signed under duress by one party would nonetheless be binding.
Could this be? What am I missing?
The wikipedia entry quotes the judgement in part:
The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party.
Again, IANAL but it seems to me… if the other party to the contract is holding a gun to the head of the first party, then they can - from that judgment - reasonably assess that the first party may not be assenting to the contract. OTOH, if Bob has threatened to kill Ted if Ted does not sell his land to Bill, and Bill has no idea this is going on, as far as Bill knows, Ted is willingly selling his land to Bill - then why would Bill be obliged to back out of that contract?
Where does compulsion stop? If Bill knows Ted will lose his house to foreclosure if he does not sell, is Ted being forced to sell? Should the contract be invalid?
I asuppose a grey area that needs further litigation is when one side perceives a form of threat in the interaction. Did the other side intend to threaten? “look at my nice shiny Winchester… by the way, how much for your horse?”
As to the OP question, the other part is:
…the unanimous court decision, 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.
That it seems is the key to a valid contract - “able to comprehend the nature and consequences”. We learn very early in childhood that crossing your fingers behind your back does not negate a lie or deception. It’s what you say and do that others take as your word, not your nefarious hidden intent.
I was thinking exactly of the gun-to-the-head situation. As I read Lucy v Zehmer, when assessing the validity of a signed contract, all one looks at is the signatures. You want me to sell you my car for $1,000. You hand me $1,000 and a legally-formed but unsigned contract to that effect. You hold a gun to my head and tell me to sign. I sign. You walk to the DMV the next day to get the title switched over. I complain that the contract was signed under duress. You point to LvZ and say, “The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. Thus, whc03grady’s complaint that the contract isn’t binding due to lack of his mental assent is not relevant. The contract stands.”
Why doesn’t this work?
You know, I think I may prefer it if a witness was drunk. In vino veritas, you know?
I think the point of LvZ was not that the signature is everything, it’s that “he should have known I didn’t mean it” is not a get-out-of-contract-free excuse. Lucy as far as he could tell, had the willing assent of Zehmer. It does not appear Zehmer gave any external clue at the time that he did not mean it when he explicitly signed a sales contract. (To me, it looks like a case of seller’s remorse with a dose of massive hangover) Whereas (fancy lawyer word) the guy holding a gun to your head has a pretty good clue that you are maybe not really agreeing to the contract in good faith and intent.
Basically, the court decision seems to say “the other guy can only go by what he sees and what you tell him, he can’t read your mind.”
What I see as a grey area is if the threat is more subtle, or coming from a different person perhaps unknown to the buyer. “If you don’t get rid of your pickup truck to the first person that comes along, I’ll shoot your puppy!”
Oft said, but I’ve seen plenty of drunks lie their heads off.
Okay, that makes sense.
But are they better liars drunk, or sober? It’s not that drunk people don’t lie, it’s that they don’t lie as well, especially when challenged.
The experienced drunk can be better at lying when intoxicated. They fall apart when they’re sober. It’s the average person who drinks a little too much that reveals secrets.