Contracts Keyed to Murphy
Plotnick v. Pennsylvania Smelting & Refining Co
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:
Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania buyer, had a contract with Defendant, a Canadian seller to buy lead. Throughout their dealings with each other both complained, rightly, that the other was slow to perform. Plaintiff and Defendant made a contract for 200 tons of lead to be delivered to Plaintiff no later than Dec 25. They agreed that at least 63 percent of the price per carload would be paid shortly after each shipment, with the balance to be paid within four weeks after delivery. The shipment began, although the second and third ones were after Dec 25. Plaintiff paid for the first and second shipments in a more or less timely fashion. The third shipment, which arrived on March 23, was not paid for. On April 7, Plaintiff said he needed more lead or he would have to buy it on the open market. Defendant replied that unless the previous installment was paid for, he would not send any more lead. On June 2, Defendant notified Plaintiff that the Canadian Government had imposed export contro ls on lead. Plaintiff complained during that time, that he was selling lead faster than he could get it in and that he was withholding payment on the third shipment because Defendant refused to send the fourth.
- 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.