Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Vertex, Inc. v. City of Waterbury
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 March 1999, Vertex, Inc. (Plaintiff) offered to prepare the computer systems of the City of Waterbury (Defendant) for problems associated with the year 2000. Plaintiff accepted and work commenced that month. The parties entered a formal written contract detailing the tasks to be performed in June 1999. On July 1, 1999, Plaintiff sent Defendant a proposal to perform additional work to address problems it had identified in its first few months of working under the contract. It is disputed whether Defendant accepted the July 1999 proposal. Plaintiff performed the additional work proposed in the July 1999 proposal but Defendant refused to pay for the additional work. Plaintiff sued alleging, among other claims, unjust enrichment. A jury trial was held. Plaintiff requested a jury instruction explaining that, to prove an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must show that the plaintiff provided services to the defendant, that the defendant benefitted, that the defendant unjustly failed to pay for the benefit, and that the defendant’s refusal to pay was detrimental to the plaintiff. The court rejected the proposed instruction and instead instructed the jury on implied-in-fact contracts. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and the court declared a mistrial. After the case was retried, the jury found in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the verdict and obtain a new trial, on grounds that the court improperly instructed the jury as to its unjust enrichment claim.
- 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.