Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Gardner Zemke Co. v. Dunham Bush, 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:
Gardner Zemke Co. (Plaintiff) was a general contractor awarded a large contract from the Department of Energy (DOE). Plaintiff awarded a subcontract to Dunham Bush, Inc. (Defendant) to supply air-conditioning units for the DOE project. Plaintiff sent a purchase order requesting the goods to Defendant, and Defendant replied with an acknowledgement form containing substantial warranty disclaimers. The acknowledgement form also contained a provision that silence by Plaintiffwould be interpreted as acquiescence to the new agreement. Plaintiff and Defendant went forward with the transaction without resolving discrepancies between the purchase order and the acknowledgement form. Plaintiff alleged that the goods provided by Defendant did not conform to its specifications, and thus Plaintiff was required to pay additional installation costs for the nonconforming goods. A few months after the air-conditioners were installed, DOE complained to Plaintiff that two were not working properly. Plaintiff requested examination of the units by Defendant, but Defendant refused to provide this service unless DOE issued an additional purchase order expressing willingness to pay for Defendant’s services if the air-conditioners were found to not be problematic. DOE did not issue another purchase order, but instead chose an independent contractor to repair the two air-conditioners. DOE then withheld $20,000 from Plaintiff’s contract to cover the cost of repairs. Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover this money, and the trial court ruled for Defendant on the ground that its acknowledgement form disclaiming warranty operated as a counteroffer which was accepted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff 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.