In: Economics
We can all think of someone that has done something
incredibly stupid when they are intoxicated. Do you have sympathy
for intoxicated people who make agreements? Should the law ever let
them back out of deals when they sober up? After all, no one forced
them to get drunk.
The law in contracts, as it currently stands is that
when one party is so intoxicated that he cannot understand the
nature and consequences of the transaction, the contract is
voidable. Yet, courts often enforce contracts even if someone was
intoxicated beyond the legal limit of driving (.08 blood alcohol
level). Plaintiffs trying to back out of a contract made while they
were intoxicated have to show that they did not understand the
"nature of the agreement."
Should the law be more lenient or is it reasonable as
it currently exists?
Answer - A contract is legally enforceable when
Wherein as per the 3. point a Competent party to enter into contract . According to section 11,every person is competent if he
i) he is of majority age ; ii) he is of sound mind ; iii)not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject
Therefore, usually courts are no very sympathetic towards the persons who tend to say that they were intoxicated when they had signed the contract . However the court will allow the contract to become void if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication part and took advantage of the person or if the person was forcibly druged. But proving the last part itself is a deal .Because as per norms to enter in contract Section 11 (ii) the person who is coming in contract does not have a sound state of mind .Making him/her unfit to enter in contract. It seem to be an appropriate law as many people would otherwise will make intoxication an excuse to get rid of there actual obligations as making legal deal is no child's play and people should be equally attentive and alert when getting in same
Kindly please rate my answer and do feel free to ask in case of doubts