Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
National Controls, Inc. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc.
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 Respondent, National Controls, Inc. (the "Respondent"), commenced a breach of contract action against the Appellant, Commodore Business Machines, Inc. (the "Appellant"). The Respondent is a manufacturer of electronic weighting and measuring devices. The Respondent sells certain of their products, model 3221 electronic microprocessor technology load cell scale (the "3221") to cash register manufacturers. Otherwise known as original equipment manufacturers ("O.E.M."). The 3221 is not in inventory, but built specific to order based on the needs of the O.E.M. In November 1989, the Appellant by telephone agreed to purchase one 3221. In December 1980, the Appellant ordered and paid for four more scales by telephone. In March 1981, an employee of the Appellant, Terry Rogers, order thirty more 3221 scales from one of the Respondent's employees, Wiggins. For these three transactions, the Respondent never received purchase orders, only a purchase order number on the phone. On March 31, 1981, Terry Rogers placed a firm order for 900 more 3221 scales. The delivery schedule was as follows: "50 to be delivered in May, 150 in June, 300 in July, and 400 in August." For the March 31, 1981 Order, Wiggins sent the Appellant a sale order. This sale order was also sent to the Respondent's Florida manufacturing facility, which began constructing the units. The Appellant received delivery of the first 200 units, and in June of 1981, 300 more units were ready to ship. Also around June of 1981, the manufacturer had almost completed the final 400 units. However, the Appellant only accepted delivery of the first 50 scales and "did not [accept] or pay for the remaining 850 units." The remaining 850 units were sold to an existing O.E.M customer. Testimony showed that the Respondent had the capability to "more than double its output of 3221's".
- 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.