Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Ayres
Alaska Northern Development, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
Citation:667 P.2d 33
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:
President of the Plaintiff began a discussion with with Defendant regarding the purchase product. The president prepared a letter of intent dated December 10, 1976. The letter of intent stated that the Plaintiff proposed to purchase “the entire Alyeska inventory of caterpillar parts.” The purchase price was left blank. The Defendant responded with their own letter of intent on December 11 that contained the language “Please consider this as said letter of intent, subject to the final approval of the owner committee.” The president of the Plaintiff was given an unsigned draft of the December 11th letter. He later met with an employee of the Defendant and agreed on sixty-five percent of Defendant’s purchase price to be the price term to be filled in the blank of the December 11th letter. The president then signed the letter. In March 1977, the owner committee rejected the proposal in the December 11th of the intent. Plaintiff contends that that the parties understood the subject to approval language to mean that the Defendant’s owner committee only reviewing whether the price was fair and reasonable.
- 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.