Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
PDQ Lube Center, Inc. v. Huber
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 September 17, 1993, PDQ Lube Center Services, Inc. (Plaintiff) offered to purchase real property from R. Lowell Huber (Defendant) for $125,000. On September 22, 1993, Defendant accepted Plaintiff’s offer. The contract required Plaintiff to apply for a loan within seven days. It further required Plaintiff and the property to qualify for the loan within sixty days of acceptance. The property would be deemed qualified if it was appraised at no less than the value of the purchase price. The closing date was set for December 15, 1993. The parties later added an addendum to the contract to address possible contamination of the property due to the prior operation of a gas station on the premises. Defendant agreed to obtain an environmental clearance and to remove underground tanks from the property upon Plaintiff’s payment of a $4,000 cleanup deposit. The contract included an integration clause and a provision stating that time was of the essence. Plaintiff timely sought financing pursuant to the contract. Defendant received the $4,000 deposit from Plaintiff but did not remove the tanks after learning that the previous owners would not assist in removing the tanks. Plaintiff ultimately did not obtain a loan or appraisal, and the transaction did not close. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract. The trial court found that Defendant failed to act in good faith by failing to remove the tanks. It also found that its conduct prevented Plaintiff from formally applying for a loan and obtaining an appraisal, due to the fact that applying for a loan and conducting an appraisal before the tanks were removed would have been futile. The trial court therefore granted Plaintiff specific performance, requiring Defendant to obtain an environmental clearance and to convey the property to Plaintiff if Plaintiff tendered the purchase price within eighty-four days after the environmental clearance was obtained. 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.