Contracts Keyed to Summers
Berke Moore Co. v. Phoenix Bridge 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:
The Phoenix Bridge Company (Defendant), a general contractor, contracted with New Hampshire to build a bridge. Defendant was to receive payment for approximately 3,933 square yards of concrete surface included in the bridge deck. Defendant thereafter entered a subcontract with Berke Moore Co. (Plaintiff), under which Plaintiff was to perform concrete work for the bridge deck. Plaintiff was to be paid per square yard of concrete. Plaintiff was aware at the time it entered the subcontract that the general contract estimated 3,933 square yards for the project. Plaintiff performed the work and sought payment for the total square yards of concrete it placed on the deck, which amounted to 8,100 square yards. Defendant took the position that Plaintiff was only entitled to payment for the square yards of concrete included in the upper surface area of the deck, which amounted to 4,184 square yards. The trial court found that, at the time the subcontract was entered, Defendant and Plaintiff believed that Plaintiff would only be paid for concrete placed in the upper surface of the deck.
- 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.