Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Dawson
Autauga Quality Cotton Association v. Crosby
Citation:893 F.3d 1276.
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:
Autauga was a not-for-profit cotton-marketing association in Alabama. Autauga pooled cotton grown by its member farmers and then marketed it for sale in an effort to provide price stability. The Crosbys were Georgia cotton farmers and were members of Autauga for several years. Crosby entered into a marketing agreement with Autauga in 2007. Per the agreement, Crosby agreed to pledge all the cotton grown on the farms listed on a separate “Farm Verification Form” to Autauga. The form needed to be updated annually, otherwise the prior year’s form would govern the current year’s obligations. The marketing agreement also included a liquidated damages provision that provided for “an amount equal to the difference between (a) the price of such cotton on the New York futures market… and (b) the highest price per pound received by the Association for membership cotton…” In 2010, Crosby failed to submit a farm verification form. That same year Crosby executed contracts to sell its 2010 crop to Cargill Cotton and ultimately did not deliver any cotton to Autauga. In 2011, Autauga’s attorney sent a demand letter to Crosby and another letter three years later demanding payment of $1,305,397 pursuant to the marketing agreement. Throughout litigation, Autauga revised its demand multiple times ultimately requesting $1,696,610 in liquidated damages pursuant to the provision’s formula.
- 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.