Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
United States for Use of Susi Contracting Co. v. Zara Contracting 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:
On March 4, 1941, Zara Contracting Co. (Defendant) entered a contract with the United States, whereby Defendant agreed to construct an extension to an airport. On April 2, 1941, Defendant entered a subcontract with Susi Contracting Co. and D’Agostino & Cuccio, Inc. (Plaintiffs) to perform all of the work required under the main contract. Article 5 of the subcontract stated that no representations had been made regarding the subsurface conditions, and that Plaintiffs could not make a claim for damages due to unknown conditions. During excavation, Plaintiffs discovered unexpected soil conditions that caused difficulty in the performance of the work and required work not called for under the main contract. Plaintiffs demanded more money for their work. Defendant refused and, two months after Plaintiffs began work, took over the work itself. Plaintiffs sued Defendant, alleging wrongful termination of the subcontract. They sought, among other things, the reasonable value of their work. The district court found that Defendant had wrongfully terminated the contract and owed Plaintiffs $39,107.10 for Plaintiffs’ services and $18,600 for the increased cost of excavation. Defendant appealed, challenging Plaintiffs’ entitlement to the $18,600 for the increased costs.
- 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.