Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Scott
Hamill v. Maryland Casualty 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:
Gunnell Construction Company (Defendant), in need of capital, reached an investment agreement with Don Hamill (Defendant). Hamill agreed to advance 10% of any construction contracts that Gunnell entered into in exchange for 10% of any net profits that Gunnell made on the contracts. Under this agreement, Gunnell entered into a contract to build an addition onto a school. Gunnell applied to the Maryland Casualty Co. (Plaintiff) for a performance bond. Plaintiff stated that Gunnell had insufficient working capital to issue the bond, at which point Gunnell showed Plaintiff its contract with Hamill. With this contract backing Gunnell’s financial stability, Plaintiff issued the performance bond. During the school project, Gunnell encountered financial problems and could not pay all of its bills. Hamill nonetheless demanded repayment under their agreement and Gunnell paid. Plaintiff then paid Gunnell’s outstanding bills to discharge Plaintiff’s obligations on the performance bond. Plaintiff then sued Defendants, seeking repayment of the performance bond. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico ruled in favor of Plaintiff against Hamill, finding that Plaintiff was a third party beneficiary to the Hamill-Gunnell contract and that Hamill breached the contract by demanding repayment of his investment before the project’s bills were paid in full. Hamill 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.