Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Western Hills, Oregon, Ltd. v. Pfau
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, Western Hills, Oregon, Ltd. (the "Plaintiff"), a limited partnership, was the owner of a piece of property. The Defendants, Pfau and other (the "Defendants"), the members of a joint venture, purchased the property from the Plaintiff for development purposes. The purchase was memorialized in an "Exchange Agreement". The purchase was made "subject to ability of purchasers to negotiate with City of McMinnville as to a planned development satisfactory to both first and second parties within 90 days from date. A reasonable extension not to exceed 6 months to be granted if necessary." At the time the agreement was signed, the Defendants knew the city would not be developing the sewer system for a while. The Defendants made certain preliminary proposals to the city for a planned development, but abandoned the plans because the development would be too expensive due to the cost of privately constructing the sewers. The city's Planning Commission reacted favorably to the preliminary plans. The Plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement and the Defendant argued that since the condition was not satisfied they did not have to perform. The trial court held for the Plaintiff.
- 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.