Contracts Keyed to George
C. Czarnikow, Ltd. v. Koufos
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:
Koufos (plaintiff) contracted with the holder of shipping vessel owed by C. Czarnikow, Ltd. (Czarnikow) (litigant) to stack a freight of 3,000 tons of sugar for conveyance to the Port of Basra and after that immediately sold to vendors. The voyage took nine days longer than anticipated. When the vessel reached Basra, the market cost of sugar had dropped because of the entry of another freight of sugar. Even thoughCzarnikow knew there was a sugar market in Basra it didn't know that Koufos proposed to instantly offer the sugar upon the vessel's entry there. Thusly, rather than getting £32 10s for each ton for the sugar, Koufos was paid £31 2s for every ton. Koufos recorded suit against Czarnikow for breach of the agreement and looked for the distinction between the market cost and the value he got for the sugar as damages. The trial court held for Czarnikow. Koufos appealed. The court of appeals reversed and held that Koufos' misfortune because of the fall in market cost was not very remote to be recoverable as damages. Czarnikow appealed to the House of Lords.
- 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.