Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Sterling v. Taylor
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:
Donald Sterling (Plaintiff) sought to purchase three apartment buildings from the Santa Monica Collection partnership, of which Lawrence Taylor (Defendant) was a general partner. On March 13, 2000, Plaintiff drafted a memorandum identifying the three apartment buildings and stating a price term of "approx. 10.468 X gross income[,] estimated income 1.600.000, Price $16,750."The price term in the memorandum contained a clerical error and was intended by both parties to read $16,750,000. Only Plaintiff initialed the memorandum. On March 15, 2000, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant discussing deposits he had made and discussing other aspects of the sale. The letter did not mention the price term. Both parties signed this letter. On April 4, 2000, Defendant sent Plaintiff formal purchase agreements indicating an aggregate price term of $16,750,000. Plaintiff refused to sign because, after reviewing the rent rolls, he had found that the actual rental income of the apartment buildings was $1,375,404, rather than the $1,600,000 estimated in the memorandum. Pursuant to the formula contained in the memorandum, Plaintiff multiplied the actual rental income by 10.468, resulting in a purchase price of $14,404,841. Defendant refused to lower the purchase price. In March 2001, Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the alleged contract violated the statute of frauds because the price term was too uncertain. The trial court granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that extrinsic evidence sufficiently clarified the price term. 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.
- 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.