Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Oloffson v. Coomer
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:
Oloffson (Plaintiff) is a grain dealer who was in the business of merchandising grain. He is thus considered a “merchant” under Section 2-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Coomer (Defendant) is a farmer who supplied corn for Plaintiff’s merchandising business. On April 16, 1970, Defendant agreed to sell Plaintiff 40,000 bushels of corn for approximately $1.12 per bushel, to be delivered in two installments of 20,000 bushels each in October and December of 1970. On June 3, 1970, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he was not going to plant corn because the season had been too rainy. Defendant told Plaintiff to arrange to obtain corn elsewhere to meet his merchandising needs. On this date, the price of corn for future delivery had risen to $1.16 per bushel. Plaintiff again asked Defendant about delivering corn in September 1970, and Defendant repeated that he would not be able to deliver. Plaintiff persisted, but the scheduled delivery dates passed with no delivery of corn. Plaintiff covered his own obligations to third party vendees by purchasing 40,000 bushels of corn at $1.35 and $1.49 per bushel. Plaintiff sued to recover damages from Defendant. The trial court awarded Plaintiff $1,500, or the difference between the contract prices and the prices of corn on June 3, 1970 when Defendant first told Plaintiff he would not deliver. Plaintiff appealed and argued that the proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market prices on the October and December dates when the corn should have been delivered pursuant to the original April 16, 1970 contract.
- 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.