Contracts Keyed to Summers
Triple A Contractors, Inc. v. Rural Water District No. 4, Neosho County
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:
On March 4, 1976, Rural Water District No. 4, Neosho County, Kansas (Defendant) issued an invitation for bids for the construction of a water distribution and storage system. In order to guarantee that the selected contractor entered into a construction contract, Defendant required that contractors submit bids with a bid bond in the amount of 5% of the total bid. On March 24, 1976, the bids were opened. Triple A Contractors, Inc. (Plaintiff) had submitted the lowest bid for $812,753. This bid was $169,079.50 lower than the second lowest bid. Plaintiff’s bid was low enough that both parties suspected an error had occurred. On March 27, 1976, Plaintiff discovered a clerical error. On March 29, 1976, Plaintiff informed Defendant’s engineer of the error. On March 31, 1976, Plaintiff sent a letter requesting that Defendant allow Plaintiff to withdraw its bid. On April 21, 1976, Defendant’s board voted to accept Plaintiff’s bid. Plaintiff rejected the contract and sued seeking a cancellation of its bid and its bid bond. The district court held that Plaintiff’s unilateral mistake would not excuse Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the bid contract and denied Plaintiff’s petition. Plaintiff 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.