Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Gruber v. S-M News Co.
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 Plaintiffs, Gruber and others (the "Plaintiffs"), entered into a contract with the Defendant, S-M News Co. (the "Defendant"), on about September 10, 1945. The Plaintiffs promised to produce, based on the Defendant's specifications, 90,000 sets of Christmas cards. The cost was 84 cents per set. The cards were to arrive at the Defendant's place of business no later than the second week in October, and the Defendant was to have "exclusive sale and distribution rights to these sets." The Defendant was supposed to use their marketing resources to sell the cards. They had to do so with "reasonable diligence." The Defendant was also granted a credit by the Plaintiff for all sets it could not sell. On October 2, 1945, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant the cards were ready, but the Defendant refused to perform. The plaintiff filed suit requesting $101,800 in damages. This court found the Defendant did not act with "reasonable diligence" and its damage calculation ensued.
- 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.