In recent news, pop superstar Katy Perry finds herself in the legal spotlight once again, but this time not for her music. After a trademark suit loss against an Australian clothes designer, Perry’s involvement takes a surprising turn. Reports reveal that she has unintentionally become the namesake of proposed legislation aimed at protecting senior citizens from predatory real estate transactions. The Protecting Elderly Realty for Retirement Years Act, aptly named the PERRY Act, aims to introduce a mandatory 72-hour “cool down” period for real estate dealings involving individuals over the age of 75. This potential law, in response to a controversial case of alleged elder exploitation, represents a paradigm shift towards greater concern for consent, situational context, and the ability to say no.
Background:
The case centering around Perry involves an elderly flower mogul named Mr. Westcott, who suffers from Huntington’s disease. His legal team argues that he was in an “unsound mind” when he agreed to a real estate deal with Perry and her business partner, Gudvi. Troublingly, the offer was presented just three days after Westcott underwent a six-hour back surgery and while he was still under the influence of painkillers. Later when he sought to nullify the contract, Perry and Gudvi refused to release him from their agreement. The crux of Westcott’s claim lies in the fact that he was not capable of making sound decisions due to his medication, rendering the contract “voidable.”
The Significance of the PERRY Act:
Unlike Katy Perry’s previous album, the generally favored PERRY Act sheds light on a critical issue plaguing the elderly population: financial exploitation. Acknowledging the growing prevalence of elder fraud and related forms of exploitation, this legislation proposes a simple yet significant measure—a mandatory three-day waiting period for real estate transactions involving older adults. This cooling-off period provides individuals with ample time to reflect, seek advice, and evaluate the potential consequences of their decisions. By introducing such safeguards, the PERRY Act signifies a progressive step away from the adage of “caveat venditor” (let the seller beware) and towards a more compassionate and consent-driven legal framework.
The Evolution of Contract Law:
This case brings to mind a famous contract law precedent, Lucy v. Zehmer. In this 1954 Supreme Court of Virginia case, Lucy persuaded an intoxicated Zehmer to sign away his farm. Zehmer initially claimed it was a joke and that he was far too drunk to enter into a legally binding agreement. The court, however, disregarded his defense and upheld the contract. Had Zehmer been under the influence of painkillers due to surgery, it is likely the court would have reached a similar conclusion. Nevertheless, laws evolve over time, and the PERRY Act demonstrates society’s growing recognition of the need for protective measures against exploitation and fraud.
Market Capital Research 