Contracts Keyed to Calamari
407 East 61st Garage, Inc. v. Savoy Fifth Avenue Corp.
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, 407 East 61st St. Garage, Inc. (the "Plaintiff"), entered into an agreement with the Defendant, Savoy Fifth Avenue Corp. (the "Defendant"), on October 1, 1963, to provide garage services for the Savoy Hilton Hotel. The contract was to last for a period of 5 years, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant 10% of all "gross transient storage charges to the hotel guests." The agreement was to expire on September 30, 1968. There was no language in the agreement specifying that the Defendant must remain in the hotel business. The only provision concerning termination allowed the Defendant to "terminate the contract should the garage default in the performance of any condition, including the provision of adequate service, and then fail to cure the default within 30 days after receiving written notice." In June 1965, the Defendant's hotel was no longer profitable after incurring substantial financial losses, and subsequently was demolished. The property was sold to another company, and an office building was erected in its place. The Supreme Court treated the contract as a requirements contract, and found that absent any allegations of bad faith, the Defendant was not liable for breach of 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.