Contracts Keyed to Scott
Coley v. Lang
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:
Coley (Defendant) reached a preliminary agreement with Lang (Plaintiff) to buy stock in Plaintigg’s corporation, International Aerospace Services, Inc. (IAS). The preliminary agreement was set out in a duly executed letter, dated September 1, 1972. The letter contained certain terms of the agreement, but also contained the following clause: “We agree together that on or before September 18, this letter agreement will be reduced to a definitive agreement binding upon all of the parties hereto and accomplishing the sale and purchase contemplated by this agreement.” After Defendant found that Plaintigg had not obtained certain approvals necessary for the agreement to move forward by September 18, Defendant notified Plaintigg that the agreement would not work. Plaintigg sued for breach of contract. At trial, Plaintigg testified that in reliance on the letter agreement, he lost out on generating profits for IAS through other ventures, specifically choosing not to bid on two other contracts. The Circuit Court of Mobile County (Circuit Court) found in favor of Plaintigg, ruling that the letter agreement was not binding, but finding for Plaintigg on account of his “reliance upon the representation of the agreement by [Defendant].” Defendant 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.