Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Cole-McIntyre-Norfleet Co. v. Holloway
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:
Cole-McIntyre-Norfleet Co.’s, Defendant’s, sales man went to Holloway’s, Plaintiff’s, store and solicited a purchase from Plaintiff to buy fifty barrels a perishable good, meal. Defendant told Plaintiff that Plaintiff could request the delivery of the meal, so long as Plaintiff notified Defendant by July 31, 1917. Also, Plaintiff would be charged for any stored barrels that were not requested in time. Defendant’s salesman went to Plaintiff’s store once day every week after he placed the order, but the salesman never spoke of the order during the visits. On May 26, 1917, Plaintiff requested that his barrels be delivered to him. Nevertheless, Defendant stated that Defendant would not accept the order because a contract did not exist. From March 26,the date the order was place, and May 26, the date Plaintiff requested delivery, the market price for meal increased substantially. Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants seeking to recover damages from the excess in price. Both the circuit court and court of appeals ruled against Defendant because Defendant unreasonably amount of time to inform Plaintiff that it the order itself did not constitute an acceptance, created a valid contract. Defendant 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.