Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Associates Loan Co. v. Walker
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:
The Appellees, Earl Walker and Billie Walker ("Appellees"), were the owners of a dairy farm. The Appellees wished to purchase a mechanical water softener if in fact it increased the milk production on their farm. A salesman named Daniel R. Partin ("Mr. Partin"), doing business under the trade name Lindsay Soft Water Company of Portales, agreed orally on or about May 1, 1962 to install a water softener at the Appellees farm on a contingent basis. If the water softener did not increase milk production, it would be removed from the farm. After making the oral agreement, Mr. Partin requested that the Appellees execute a document entitled "All Goods Retail Installment Contract." This suit was brought pursuant to this document, which read that the Appellees "purchased the water softener for a stated sum to which was added a finance charge." The contract amount was to be paid in monthly installments commencing June 6, 1962. The agreement also provided that title to the product "would remain in the seller until the price was fully paid." Mr. Partin also orally agreed the contract would not be assigned or transferred. However, after the Appellee's executed the document, Mr. Partin assigned it to the Appellant, Associates Loan Company (the "Appellant"). After installation of the device, it was clear it did not assist in increasing milk production. As such, the Appellees never made any payments. However, Mr. Partin and his successor in interest, Stirman Rivers, made certain payments to the Appellant. The trial court entered judgment for the Appellees.
- 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.