One night, Lucy said to Zehmer, "I bet you wouldn't take $50,000 for your farm." Zehmer replied, "Yes, I would; you wouldn't give fifty." Throughout the evening, they drank whiskey and talked, repeatedly returning to the subject of the farm. Eventually, Zehmer wrote out an agreement to the effect that he and his wife agreed to sell the farm to Lucy for $50,000.
Lucy pocketed the agreement without Zehmer's protest. The next day, Zehmer remembered the details of the night before, but when Lucy came to take the farm, Zehmer argued that he had been drunk and that the offer had been made in jest.
Lucy and zehmer don't have an enforceable contract because the two were drunk and did not have mental capacity to enter into a contract at that time, because there was no meeting of minds
Lucy can't sell something which she actually does not possess legally. Since she does not have right on the property, she can't sell it, making the transaction void.
Sufficiency of consideration should be weighed upon economic value terms because cases of insufficient ( in value) consideration in a sales contract is more likely to have undercover issues behind it. It can be a coercion, a fraudulant deal ( selling fake gold bricks at $1000 per kg) or something which has some hidden considerations, often unlawful. The consideraion is legally sufficient when there is some value or worth in it in return of the deal, though it does not need to be adequate.
One night, Lucy said to Zehmer, "I bet you wouldn't take $50,000 for your farm." Zehmer...