This answer is responding to problem 13.3, regarding the mentally-ill broker who wants to purchase a golf course. As the problem states, the two parties are exchanging in a real estate deal (property transfer), meaning that the contract needs to be written and signed. The problem mentions that the broker took care of this, so it appears that the two parties do have a valid contract establishing the sale of the golf course. Thus, the validity of this deal comes down to the issue of mental capacity. We know that the buyer is mentally ill, and prone to making rash, manic decisions. We also know that the broker does not consistently take his medication. As established in the Ortelere decision, the state of NY takes the expanded view when examining mental capacity. While the broker was able to comprehend the weight of his actions, it seems that he was mentally unstable at the time of the deal itself. Thus, under NY consideration, the deal would be voided. This can be attributed to two reasons:

1. A) was not taking his medication properly and as prescribed, which may contribute to his insane delusions.
2. B) the individual was so affected by his decision that he was willing to end his life over the matter.

Under PA law, the court took a more narrow view of mental capacity, as supported in McGovern v. Commonwealth. The traditional test to evaluate mental capacity assesses whether the adult can enter into a contract is a pretty minimal, in that the transaction is only voided if the individual is so mentally unfit to understand consequences that they cannot comprehend the transaction. If the case was tried in PA, the deal would be enforced on the grounds that Mr. Sherman was mentally fit to enter the contract.

Lastly, R2K15 establishes some guidance, including that the person is mentally unfit if they cannot act in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction. Considering the other party did not know of the buyer's mental illness, they were not trying to take advantage of him because of it. I believe that his capacity is not in question and the contract for sale should be upheld.