DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract. It would be about whether or not he had the capacity to contract at the time of the agreement. Given the facts described, that case will turn largely on whether or not voluntary intoxication is a valid defense in civil cases in this jurisdiction. Lets look at that, shall we?

The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Intoxicated Persons
A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.

If what this person alleges is true, and it took place in a jurisdiction that follows the Restatement rule, he would not be liable.

So yes, there's at least one person in this thread that needs to take a remedial contracts class. But I don't think it's the person you were talking to.