Contracts Keyed to Summers
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Arroll
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:
Mark Arroll (Defendant) was a customer of Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Plaintiff). Defendant disputed the amounts due to Plaintiff in five bills for electricity consumed during the summers of 1968, 1969, and 1970. On December 6, 1969, Defendant sent a letter to the president of Plaintiff. The letter disputed the amounts due for three Plaintiff bills and stated that Defendant would send three checks in the amount of $35.00 each to the post office box Plaintiff designated for payment of bills. The letter also stated that Plaintiff’s cashing or retention of the checks would constitute full accord and satisfaction of Plaintiff’s claims. On September 25, 1970, Defendant sent a similar letter with respect to the remaining two bills in dispute. In accordance with the letters, Defendant sent five checks in the amount of $35.00 each to the post office box. On each check, Defendant wrote that the check was in full payment and satisfaction for its corresponding bill. Defendant also wrote the words “paid in full” on each check and referenced either the December 6, 1969 or the September 25, 1970 letter. Plaintiff replied by letter that the five bills were accurate, but did not mention the checks. Plaintiff received each check and deposited them. Plaintiff then sued Defendant to recover the difference between the amount received and the amount billed. Defendant argued accord and satisfaction of the amount due.
- 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.