Dewitt v. Bowers
1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 1088, 138 S.W. 1147 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract requires a 'meeting of the minds' on its essential terms and subject matter; thus, if parties have a fundamental misunderstanding about what is being bought and sold, no valid contract is formed. Intoxication voids a contract only if it renders a party unable to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, but a lesser degree of intoxication may be grounds for avoidance if coupled with unfair advantage by the other party.
Facts:
- On or about December 12, 1909, Appellee, a stockman and farmer, entered the Big Four Saloon in Texico, New Mexico.
- Appellant Dewitt approached Appellee and offered to sell him the saloon, fixtures, wines, and liquors.
- Appellee understood Dewitt's offer, which included the phrase 'everything went,' to comprehend and include the house and lot where the saloon business was located, for the agreed sum of $2,000.
- At the time of the offer, Appellee had been drinking intoxicating beverages to an extent that he did not thoroughly understand the nature or consequences of the contract or its subject matter, and Dewitt allegedly knew of Appellee's intoxicated condition and took advantage of it.
- Appellee accepted the offer and paid Dewitt $2,000 for the property.
- Appellee never took possession of the property.
- Upon later discovering that the house and lot did not belong to Dewitt, Appellee demanded the return of his money.
- Dewitt testified that he had fully explained to Appellee that he did not own the house and lot, and they were not included in the sale.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellee instituted a suit, alleging no contract was formed and seeking the return of $2,000, plus interest.
- The cause was tried by a jury, which heard conflicting testimony from Appellee and Appellant Dewitt.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee for $2,000, with interest at 6% per annum from December 12, 1909.
- A judgment was entered by the trial court for Appellee based on the jury's verdict.
- Appellant Dewitt appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contract for sale valid when one party genuinely believes the agreement includes significantly more property than the other party intends to sell, or if one party was intoxicated to a degree that prevented a thorough understanding of the contract's subject matter?
Opinions:
Majority - FLY, J.
No, a contract is not valid if the parties' minds did not meet on the subject matter of the agreement, meaning they had fundamentally different understandings of what was being bought and sold. The court found an irreconcilable conflict in testimony regarding whether the house and lot were included, indicating a potential lack of mutual assent on the contract's subject matter. The court emphasized that it is an elementary rule that the minds of the parties must meet upon the terms and subject matter to constitute a contract; if one party was selling certain property and the other was purchasing different property, no contract would exist. However, regarding the intoxication claim, the court stated that a person cannot escape liability on a contract solely on the ground of intoxication unless they were so drunk as to be unable to understand the contract's nature and consequences (to the extent of being 'non compos mentis'). While a lesser degree of intoxication might allow avoidance if the other party caused the drunkenness or took unfair advantage, the appellee's petition and testimony did not allege or prove that he was so drunk he could not comprehend what he was doing. Rather, he claimed he misunderstood the subject matter. Because the jury was improperly instructed on the high standard required for intoxication to void a contract as a standalone issue, and since the verdict did not specify the grounds upon which it was rendered, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct legal grounds for invalidating a contract based on a fundamental misunderstanding (mistake concerning subject matter) versus intoxication. It reinforces that mutual assent, or a 'meeting of the minds,' is paramount for contract formation, such that a significant discrepancy in understanding the subject matter can invalidate an agreement irrespective of fraud. Furthermore, it sets a high threshold for intoxication as a sole defense, requiring a nearly total incapacitation of reason. Yet, it also acknowledges that intoxication, even if not fully incapacitating, can be a relevant factor when combined with allegations of unfair advantage or contributing to the lack of mutual assent.
