Property Keyed to Chase
Aronsohn v. Mandara
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:
Aronsohns (plaintiffs) purchased a home from the Kawashes. The Aronsohns noticed that the patio was starting to fall apart. The Aronsohns sued, alleging that Mandara Masonry Corporation’s (Mandara) (defendant) allegedly improper construction had breached both express and implied warranties of good workmanship. The trial court found for Mandara. The trial court held that the Aronsohns could not have an express warranty claim because there was no privity of contract between the Aronsohns and Mandara. Further, the trial court held that the implied warranty of habitability did not apply to service contracts like the patio-building contract between the Kawashes and Mandara. Therefore, the Aronsohns could not pursue that claim either. The Aronsohns appealed. Although the appellate court disagreed that this patio-building contract was a service contract, it held that there was no express or implied warranty because there was no privity of contract between the Aronsohns and Mandara. The Aronsohns appealed again.
- 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.