Business Associations Keyed to Hamilton
Frontier Refining Company v. Kunkel’s Inc.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Kunkel (D) wanted to buy a filling station owned by Frontier (P). He did not have the money and asked Beach (D) and Fairfield (D) for a loan. They agreed, on the condition that Kunkel (D) incorporate the business. Kunkel (D) failed to incorporate the business, Beach (D) and Fairfield (D) acted uninformed of this, and Kunkel (D) signed a sublease with Frontier (P) commencing operation of the station. The purported business, “Clifford D. Kunkel dba Kunkel’s Inc.” received gasoline from Frontier (P). A month after the initial gasoline delivery, Frontier (P) discovered that through error, products delivered had not been for, creating a $5,000 debt. Fairfield (D) and Beach (D) invested circa $11,000 after the opening of the station. Frontier (P) claimed Fairfield (D) made reassurances that the business was being run as a corporation and that the debt would be paid, but Fairfield (D) denied making such assurances. In addition, Frontier (P) obtained from Kunkel (D) individually, a chattel mortgage covering all equipment used in the station. In another suit, Frontier (P) succeeded on this mortgage against Fairfield (D), who claimed that he owned this equipment. The trial court held that Kunkel’s Inc. (D) did not create a partnership and dismissed the case. Supreme Court granted review.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.