Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Farnsworth
Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow
Citation:257 Va. 121, 509 S.E.2d 499
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:
John R. Crow (plaintiff) was invited to test a new model sport fishing boat manufactured by Bayliner Marine Corporation (defendant). Crow briefly piloted the boat, but was unable to determine its speed. Crow discussed the specifications of the boat with a sales representative, who consulted two documents known as “prop matrixes.” Copies of these “prop matrixes” were given to Crow, along with a copy of a Bayliner brochure. Crow purchased the new model sport fishing boat. He later discovered that the boat’s maximum speed was thirteen miles per hour. Crow made various modifications to the boat to increase its speed. Despite his efforts, the boat consistently achieved a maximum speed of only seventeen miles per hour, except for one period when it reached a speed of twenty-four miles per hour. A Bayliner representative wrote to Crow and stated that the performance representations made to him at the time of the sale were incorrect and that the boat could only achieve a maximum speed of twenty-three to twenty-five miles per hour. Crow brought suit against Bayliner, arguing that the representations made to him at the time of the sale indicated that the boat was capable of a maximum speed of thirty miles per hour.
- 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.