Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Dawson
Universal Builders, Inc. v. Moon Motor Lodge, 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 contract provided that all change orders and requests for time extensions be made in writing and approved; and also provided for specified proportions of a reinforcing substance in the walls. The parties also entered a supplemental agreement that Universal would pay damages for the absence of reinforcing materials done by the subcontractor, perform other work at no additional cost, and pay liquidated damages for the delay in completion from April 1, 1962 to July 1, 1962. Universal substantially completed performance on September 1, 1962, and went into bankruptcy after filing this suit. The bankruptcy trustee for Universal asked the court to declare the supplemental agreement void as allegedly induced by fraud, to grant a money decree for work done under both the primary and supplemental contract, and for lost profits and punitive damages. The Defendant denied any fraud, denied it owed money under the contracts and counterclaimed for the delay in completion. The lower court awarded the Plaintiff $127,759.54 for the work done, plus extras and interest. The Defendant appealed.
- 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.