Intoxication Case Study Examples

Case Study On The Role Of Intoxication In Making A Contract Invoidble
With Ref: Blomley V. Ryan

…death is final. This finality makes it proper to regard death as the most serious harm that may be inflicted on another, & to regard a person who chooses to inflict that harm without justification or excuse as the most culpable of offenders .
An intoxicated person in a contract dispute may find that the contract under discussion is either voidable or valid. The standard of intoxication is similar to that which must be present in a criminal defense attempting to excuse the actions due to intoxication. A valid contract is a contract that has the full force of law & is binding to both parties. In contract disputes involving intoxicated individuals

It should be noted that even if the intoxicated person is able to void the contract, once sober, the contract can be re-entered by the parties. Let's see what happens when a seemingly friendly night of drinking turns to a dispute over contractual capacity.

Blomley V. Ryan
Facts:
Blomley entered into a contract to purchase a farm from Ryan. Ryan was 78 & was suffering the effects of prolonged & excessive consumption of alcohol. When Ryan sought to resile from the sale Blomley sought specific performance – one issue (this case will also crop up later in the unit) was whether Ryan had the requisite capacity to contract.
Held:
Noted that the Courts approach with caution claims of intoxication as a ground for resiling from contractual obligations.
This is, I think, not so much because intoxication is a self-induced state & a reprehensible thing, but rather because it would be dangerous to lend any countenance to the view that a man could escape the obligation of a contract by simply proving that he was "in liquor" when it was

The common characteristic seems to be that they have the effect of placing one party at a serious disadvantage vis-a-vis the other.’

Inadequacy of consideration will be relevant but not determinative. In cases like this where intoxication is the main disadvantage relied upon, the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration is particularly important. In this case the sale price was significantly below market price – the only explanation for this was that Ryan was old & impaired by habitual drinking to excess & who contracted during a bout of heavy drinking rendering him ‘utterly incapable of forming a rational judgment about the terms of any business transaction.’ This was apparent to Blomley (through his agent) who took unfair advantage of that condition. Specific performance & damages were, therefore,