Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Linc Equipment Services v. Signal Medical Services
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:
Signal Medical Services, Inc. (Signal) (defendant) leased a magnetic resonance imager (MRI) from Linc Equipment Services, Inc. (Linc) (plaintiff) for $30,000 every month. Signal and Linc were the two traders in the matter of leasing medical equipment. The rent for the MRI excluded consequential damages in any action brought by Signal, however not in activities brought by Linc. The MRI's magnet was damaged when the machine comes back to Linc. The MRI was out of service for 10 months while it was repaired. Linc later sold the repaired MRI for $475,000. Linc sued Signal and the firm that shipped the MRI, looking for, $300,000 in lost rental income for the 10 months that Linc was not able to lease the MRI. The district court found that Illinois law enabled consequential damages to be granted just if the contracting parties "explicitly contemplated" such damages and held that since Signal and Linc did not talk about or consider such damages when going into the rent, the consequential damages of lost rental income couldn't be granted against Signal. Linc 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.