Lucy v Zehmer The heart of the decision in this case appears to be whether Zehmer understood the nature of what was happening. The court believed that the record showed that he did. In part because intoxication is usually self-induced, there is sometimes a different emphasis in the cases that concern lack of capacity on the ground of intoxication than in the cases that concern lack of capacity on other grounds. Particularly in older cases, there is often a discussion of the parties' morals. It has been suggested that the motivation for enforcing a contract made by an intoxicated person is not that the person was sober enough to understand what he or she was doing. Instead the issue is whether the law will allow the person to get intoxicated and avoid the consequences of his or her behavior. Sometimes, it may appear that what is being judged is not the extent of a person’s intoxication but his or her attitude. What do you think? Should voluntary intoxication be an excuse for voiding a contract?