Contracts Keyed to Knapp
Seidenberg v. Summit Bank
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:
Summit (D) purchased brokerage firms from Seidenberg (P) and Raymond (collectively, “Seidenberg (P)”). As part of this transaction between these two parties, Seidenberg (P) maintained his position as an executive of the brokerage firms and was also to be in charge of the daily operations of any other employee benefits insurance business that might be part of Summit (D) in the future. The employment agreement which Summit (D) had with Seidenberg (P), acknowledged the parties’ joint obligation to work together, keeping in mind that the future performance of the brokerage firms and Seidenberg (P) compensation were tied to the firms growth and success and the line of business at Summit (D).Seidenberg (P) filed suit against Summit (D) after he had been relieved of his appointment, claiming inter alia, that Summit (D) had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to support and by even deliberately sabotaging the growth of the firms and business. Seidenberg (P) also alleged that the conduct of Summit (D) pointed to the fact that Summit (D) never had the intention of fulfilling its own side of the bargain and that from the inception of the contract, Summit (D) had not been committed to the development of the business with him, but wanted its own broker to run or grow the business after its acquisition. The trial court however granted Summit’s (D) motion for the dismissal of Seidenberg’s (P) claim on the ground that Seidenberg (P) was seeking to assert the existence (and obtain enforcement) of a verbal agreement allegedly formed beyond the scope of the written transaction agreements, in violation of the parol evidence rule and that the respective parties had equal bargaining power. The state’s intermediate court however granted review to this ruling.
- 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.