Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Bastian v. Gafford
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:
In 1972, V.H. Gafford (Defendant) asked Leo Bastian (Plaintiff) if he would be interested in building an office building on part of Defendant’s land. Plaintiff orally agreed to construct the building and began drafting the plans. After the plans were substantially complete, Defendant sought financing for the construction project from First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Twin Falls (the Association). The Association denied financing unless Defendant received a firm bid for the project from a contractor. Defendant contacted Plaintiff, who refused to submit a firm bid and would only proceed with the project on a cost-plus basis. Defendant then hired another architect to draw a second set of plans and employed another contractor to construct the building. Plaintiff filed a lien upon Defendant’s real property for $3,250 based on the amount of goods and services rendered in drawing up the plans. Plaintiff then sued to foreclose the lien on the ground that an implied-in-fact contract had been created for his services. The trial court ruled for Defendant on the ground that Defendant had not been unjustly enriched because he never used the plans drafted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed, alleging the trial court failed to distinguish between a quasi-contract, which requires unjust enrichment for recovery, and a contract implied in fact, which does not.
- 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.