Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Bartus v. Riccardi
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, Bartus (the "Plaintiff"), sold hearing aids for a manufacturer named Acousticon. On January 15, 1996, the Defendant, Riccardi (the "Defendant"), signed a contract with the Plaintiff to buy Model A-660 Acousticon hearing aids. A hearing aid clinic recommended to the Defendant that this would be the most effective model for him. On February 2, 1996, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that the Model A-660 Acousticon hearing aid had been "modified and improved" and is now called the Model A-665. The Defendant returned to the hearing clinic, which told him that the model he was using was not the one they recommended. On February 8, 1996, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff's office and told the Defendant the hearing aid was giving him a headache and that it was not the model he ordered. The Plaintiff offered to give the Defendant a Model A-660 hearing aid. Neither party mentioned canceling the contract. The Plaintiff informed Acousticon of the Defendant's complaint. On February 14, 1996, in a letter to the Defendant, Acousticon offered to replace the hearing aid the Defendant currently had with a new Model A-665 or to give him a model Model A-660. The Defendant refused both types of hearing aids. Now the Plaintiff sues for return of the balance due on the contract.
- 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.