Contracts Keyed to Scott
Seitz v. Mark-O-Lite Sign Contractors, Inc.
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:
George Seitz (Plaintiff) hired Mark-O-Lite Sign Contractors, Inc. (Defendant) to restore and replace a neon sign marquee. The project necessitated sheet metal work, which Al Jorgenson, Defendant’s employee, was scheduled to perform. Jorgenson was the only Defendant employee capable of performing the expert sheet metal work the job required. Jorgenson, however, was not named in the contract. Jorgenson had a debilitating diabetes condition and after the contract was signed, required an extended stay in the hospital. At this point, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it could not perform its duty under the contract because of Jorgenson’s unavailability. Defendant also contacted other sign companies, but found that they would charge Defendant too much to make it economically feasible to contract out the work that Jorgenson would have done. Eventually Plaintiff hired a different sign company to do the work and was charged $7200 more than the price in the Defendant contract. Plaintiff sued to recover that amount.
- 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.