Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Cousineau 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:
In 1975, The Appellees, Devon Walker and his wife (the "Appellees"), purchased a certain parcel of land in Alaska for $140,000. In October 1976, the Appellees attempted to sell the land and in their multiple listing agreement said the property included "580 feet of highway frontage" and based on an engineers report possessed "OVER 1 MILLION IN GRAVEL ON PROP." The Appellees asking price was $245,000. The initial multiple listing agreement expired, and the Appellees signed a new agreement. In the agreement the property was again described as containing "580 feet of highway frontage." However, the gravel content was set at a "minimum 80,000 cubic yds of gravel." The new asking price in the second agreement was $470,000. On December 31, 1976 an appraisal was conducted, but the appraisal value did not take into account the value of the gravel. The appraisal report, however, did mention the ground was "all good gravel base." The Appellant, Wayne Cousineau (the "Appellant"), after seeing the second listing, offered $360,000 for the property. The Appellant was in the gravel extraction business so he wanted all gravel rights transferred to him. In February of 1977, Mr. Cousineau agreed to pay $385,000 for the property. The Appellee's security interest in the property was protected by limiting the amount of gravel the Appellant initially could remove. The Appellant and his business partners shortly after the closing began developing the commercial portion of the property. In doing so they purchased a $12,000 gravel scale. Shortly thereafter, they learned that the actual highway frontage was 415 feet, not 580 feet. Simultaneously, after removing only 6,000 yards of gravel, the gravel supply on the property ran out. In December of 1977 the Appellant and his partners stopped paying for the property. At that time they had paid $99,000. The Appellant brought suit for rescission and restitution. The trial court found that the Appellant did not rely on any misrepresentations and ruled 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.