Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 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 Plaintiffs, Harold S. Lee (now deceased) and his two sons Eric Lee and Lester Lee (the "Plaintiffs"), were the 50% owners of Capital City Liquor Company, Inc. ("Capital City"), a wholesale liquor distributorship. Capital City sold a large amount of the Defendant, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc's. (the "Defendant") products. In May of 1970, Harold Lee discussed the potential sale of Capital City's assets with an Executive Vice President of the Defendant corporation. Harold Lee had a relationship with the Defendant corporation and its principles for many years. Harold Lee agreed to sell his and his sons 50% interest in Capital City to the Defendant, if the Defendant agreed to relocate Harold Lee and his sons "in a new distributorship of their own in a different city." The agreement to purchase Capital City's assets was consummated on September 30, 1970, but the relocation portion of the agreement was never put into writing. The Plaintiffs sued for damages because although the Defendant had opportunities to do so, it never relocated the Plaintiffs. The district court judge allowed the oral relocation agreement to be admitted under the parol evidence rule.
- 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.