Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Registry Hotel Corp.
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 Plaintiff, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (the "Plaintiff"), acting as the receiver of a Kansas bank, brings suit to recover loans of $102,217.92, extended by the aforementioned Kansas bank to Frownfelter Construction Company ("FCC"). On February 24, 1982, FCC and the Defendant, Registry Hotel Corp. (the "Defendant"), entered into a $170,000 construction contract. The Kansas bank was given a security interest in the construction contract between the Defendant and the FCC. The owner of FCC, Stanley Frownfelter ("Mr. Frownfelter"), signed the security agreement. On April 16, 1982, the Defendant accepted the assignment to the Kansas bank, and agreed to name the bank as co-payee on any disbursements on the contract. Before November 1982, the Defendant terminated the contract because FCC did not obtain the necessary bonds. In December 1982, the Defendant contracted with one of FCC's former subcontractors, Uni-Lock Pavestone ("Pavestone") to do the job. In January of 1993, Pavestone subcontracted with another of Mr. Frownfelter's companies, Pave-Lock Systems to provide certain services. There is no indication Pavestone knew about Mr. Frownfelter's original contract with FCC. FCC defaulted on the loans with the Kansas bank, and the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for $102,217.92. The court denied the Defendants motion for summary judgment.
- 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.