Contracts Keyed to Knapp
Caceci v. Di Canio Construction Corp
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:
Defendants entered into a $50,000 construction agreement with Plaintiff to build a new home. The construction contract, which contained a standard integration clause, gave Plaintiffs an express warranty for one year from title closing for replacement or repair of any defects or defective parts. Although the contract did contain several other limited warranties pertaining to workmanship, the contract explicitly held that such warranties would not survive past the date of closing. Nearly four years after the closing, Plaintiffs noticed that the kitchen floor was dipping. After Defendants made several unsuccessful attempts to repair the floor, Plaintiffs hired a third party who determined that the dipping resulted from the house being built on poor foundation. Plaintiffs then sued Defendants to recover the costs of the repairs. The trial court returned a verdict for Plaintiffs on the basis of negligent construction and breach of implied warranty of workmanlike construction. Pictorial evidence was produced at trial showing that Defendants knew, at the time of construction, that the foundation was faulty. Based on Defendants’ knowledge, the trial court awarded judgment for the Plaintiff.
- 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.