It is a fundamental of the law that before there can be a valid contract there must be a meeting of the minds of the parties to such contract, therefore, if the defendant at the time of the execution of the alleged contract sued upon was in such an extreme state of intoxication that he did not comprehend his acts, equity will afford him complete relief not only as to specific performance, but as to rescission as well.33

Ordinary intoxication in a suit for specific performance has the effect of neutralizing the equities so that the court will not act on either side.34 Intoxication which merely exhilarates and does not materially affect the understanding is not grounds for refusing to specifically perform the contract.35 There are a line of cases holding that intoxication unless induced by the contrivance of the plaintiff is not a defense to specific performance, but these cases and this rule is not in accordance with the weight of authority.36