Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Clapp v. Orix Credit Alliance, 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:
Clapp (Plaintiff), an independent truck driver, decided to purchase a highway tractor. Laser Express, Inc. (Defendant), an interstate common carrier Clapp provided truck-driving services for, agreed to purchase the tractor for Clapp. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.(Defendant), a commercial finance company, entered into a contract with Laser and prohibited Laser from assigning the contract without prior written consent. Laser nevertheless transferred its interest in the contract to Clapp without the requisite consent. The next year, the tractor was accidentally destroyed. The insurance payment to Orix exceeded the balance due on the contract by $9,950.39. Clapp claimed the net proceeds in excess of her balance belong to her and demanded payment from Orix. Orix, however, issued a check for the proceeds to Laser. Clapp sued both Defendants for conversion. The trial court granted Orix’s cross-motion for summary judgment, holding that the assignment is a limited one and does not entitle Clapp to the net insurance proceeds. Clapp 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.