Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, 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:
Plaintiff, Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture, is a general contractor, and, Defendant, Pacific Erectors, Inc., is a subcontractor. Plaintiff was granted a contract to build a coal-fired power plant. Plaintiff began negotiations with Defendant to build the Flue Gas System (FGS), which would be part of the entire power plant project. Defendant proposed to build the support steel for FGS. Nevertheless, Plaintiff wanted Defendant to build all the essential steel for FGS and to construct the complete FGS component. At the third negotiations meeting, the parties conversed line by line about for the work that was to be performed under the contract. Plaintiff submitted a version of the contract, which stated that Defendant would “erect complete” and “make a complete installation” of the FGS. Defendant opposed this statement. Instead, Defendant contends he voiced his opposition with this requirement, however, Plaintiff, informed Defendant that the language could be viewed as solely requiring Defendant to build the support steel and compose picks and sets for the FGS. Defendant settled to this version of the terms, however, the language of the agreement did not change. Also, the agreement included a merger provision, which stated that the agreement was the final and complete writing between the parties. Defendant began to work on the agreement, however, he declined to compose the entire FGS. Plaintiff brought suit in against Defendant claiming breach of contract. At trial, Defendant was allowed to submit extrinsic evidence illustrating that the parties envisioned the meaning of the agreement to solely include the erection of support steel and picks and sets by Defendant. The jury ruled in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff appealed.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.