Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Beanstalk Group, Inc. v. AM General 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:
AM General was the manufacturer of the Hummer vehicle. In the Agreement, AM General appointed Beanstalk "as its exclusive agent to find licensees to use AM General's Hummer trademark." Beanstalk was entitled to a commission of 35% on all gross receipts from relevant license agreements. The Agreement was to run until the end of 2000. In 1999, AM General and GM entered into a joint-venture agreement and GM acquired the Hummer trademark. Beanstalk sued AM general "for a 35% commission on so much of the consideration running from GM to AM General as is attributable to the value of the Hummer trademark." GM had informed Beanstalk that it would not compensate them for any "license agreements made or renewed after the effective date of the joint venture agreement" because they "had not assumed any of AM General's obligations under the representation agreement." The District court dismissed Beanstalk's complaint.
- 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.