Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Cornerstone Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. MacLeod
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:
MacLeod (Defendant) borrowed $725,000 from Cornerstone Equipment Leasing, Inc. (Plaintiff) in July 1998 and signed a promissory note requiring monthly payments with 20% annual interest until the balance was paid. The balance was due November 1999. In December 1999, the parties agreed to extend the due date by two years. Over the next several years, they extended the due date multiple times. At one point in 2001, after Defendant complained that he had already paid back more than the original loan amount, Defendant claimed that he and Plaintiff’s president, Chevigny, came to an oral agreement to set aside the remaining principal balance, with the understanding that it would be used in a future business transaction. In June 2005, the parties agreed to another amended note. According to Defendant, Chevigny stated that the note would only be used for “internal purposes” and that the parties would work out the payment in some “future deal.” According to Defendant, in December 2006, Chevigny also called him and stated that the parties were “even.” Defendant gave no consideration for this purported waiver of Plaintiff’s right to payment. Chevigny denied making that call. In June 2007, Chevigny called Defendant and demanded payment on the June 2005 agreement. Chevigny also followed up with a letter demanding payment.
- 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.