(B) INTOXICATION
Intoxication is treated as a ground of restitution in the same way as mental incapacity. So where, for example, the claimant was so intoxicated at the time of signing a contract that he or she did not realize that the nature of the contract was different from that which he or she intended to sign, the doctrine of non est factum will be applicable and the contract will be void. In every other case in which the claimant was intoxicated at the time of entering into a transaction with the defendant, this will make the transaction voidable so long as the claimant was so intoxicated that he or she did not understand the nature and effect of the transaction and the defendant knew that the claimant was intoxicated at the time.[1] This means that the claimant must have been really drunk, rather than merely tipsy, before he or she can be regarded as incapacitated. Where, however, the intoxicated person is supplied with necessaries he or she must pay a reasonable price for them.[2]
