Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Bartush-Schnitzius Foods Co. v. Cimco Refrigeration, Inc.
Citation:518 S.W.3d 432, 60 Tex. Supp. Ct. J. 861 (2017)
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:
In 2010, Bartush planned to expand its line of food products to include seafood dips. Manufacturing the dips required Bartush’s production facilities to maintain a constant temperature no higher than thirty-eight degrees – lower than Bartush’s existing refrigeration system could sustain. Bartush therefore contracted with Cimco to install a new system. After installation, Bartush started to operate the new system at a temperature setting of thirty-five degrees. However, this resulted in ice forming on the fan motors because the system’s defrost unit was not designed to support operation at such a low temperature. When Cimco did not respond to Bartush’s request for repair, Bartush withheld further payment. In response to Bartush’s nonpayment, Cimco sued Bartush to recover the balance owed on the contract. Bartush counterclaimed that its failure to pay was justified by Cimco’s prior material breach.
- 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.