Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Western Waterproofing Co v. Springfield Housing Authority
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, Western Waterproofing Co. ("Western") and Mid-Continental Restoration Company, Inc. ("Mid-Continental")(collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), were subcontractors for a federally funded construction project commissioned by the Defendant, the Springfield Housing Authority (the "Defendant"). In January 1985, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the general contractor, Bildoc, Inc. ("Bildoc"), for the waterproofing and weatherization of certain buildings. Bildoc then entered into contracts with a variety of subcontractors, including the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contributed both labor and materials towards the project. Bildoc was paid most of the money owed to it by the Defendant by December 13, 1985. Western was owed $129,000 and Mid-Continental was to be paid $22,456, but neither of the Plaintiffs was ever paid. The Plaintiffs secured a default judgment against Bildoc, which they could not collect on. The Plaintiffs then filed an action against the Defendant as a third-party beneficiary. The contact between the Defendant and Bildoc required Bildoc to give the Defendant a performance bond. However, the Defendant failed to obtain a bond from Bildoc. The parties are in agreement that if the Defendant had secured a payment bond, the Plaintiffs would have had a right to collect under it. On the other hand, the parties also agree that if the Defendant had secured a performance bond the Plaintiffs would have had no right to collect. The Plaintiffs argue that the bond in question included under the subtitle "Performance and Payment Bond" in the parties contract required both a payment and a performance bond. The Defendant alleges that it was only a performance bond. All parties moved for summary judgment.
- 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.