Contracts Keyed to Scott
California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Sun Ship, 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:
California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. (Plaintiff) hired Sun Ship, Inc. (Defendant) to construct a barge and also hired Halter to build a tug. Under its contract with Plaintiff, Defendant was to interconnect the barge and the tug as Plaintiff planned to use the hybrid to transport its sugar. Plaintiff’s contract with Halter provided that the tug was to be delivered to Defendant’s shipyard on April 30, 1981. Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant provided the barge be completed by June 30, 1981. This contract, negotiated by high-level managers and under advice of counsel, also provided that if the completed vessel was not delivered by June 30, 1981, Defendant would pay Plaintiff “as per-day liquidated damages, and not as a penalty” $17,000, which was deemed in the contract to be “a reasonable measure of the damages.” Defendant was late with performance and finished constructing the barge on March 16, 1982. Halter was also late, finishing constructing the tug on July 15, 1982. The vessels were connected shortly thereafter. Plaintiff sued Defendant to collect liquidated damages based on the clause in the contract. The trial court ruled in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendant appealed, arguing that because Halter had not delivered the tug by Defendant’s scheduled delivery date of the barge, the liquidated damages clause amounts to a penalty. Specifically, Defendant claimed that without the completed tug, Defendant’s delivery of a completed barge on the delivery date would have been useless to 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.