Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Whaley
Burger King Corp. v. Family Dining, Inc.
Citation:United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1977, 426 F.Supp. 485, aff'd, 566 F.2d 1168 (3d Cir. 1977)
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:
Burger King Corporation (“Burger King” – Plaintiff) entered into an exclusive territorial agreement with Family Dining, Inc. (Defendant). The agreement provided that if defendant opened one Burger King restaurant per year for the next ten years and agreed to operate those restaurants according to the requirements of Burger King’s franchise agreement, defendant would enjoy exclusivity of operations within Bucks and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania for a period of 90 years. Defendant opened its first 3 restaurants in compliance with the terms of the agreement. Defendant was delayed by 19 months when opening its fourth and fifth restaurants. Defendant’s found, James McLamore, spoke with plaintiff about this issue, and stated that although plaintiff failed to conform to the contract, plaintiff still “substantially met” its obligations under the agreement. Plaintiff then continued to open restaurants, however, when it failed to open its eighth restaurant on time, it received a letter dated May 23, 1973 which stated that Burger King considered defendant to have breached the territorial agreement and was revoking the exclusivity guarantee. Burger King had evolved into a complex corporate entity and defendant no longer communicated with James McLamore on this matter. From November 1973 to early 1975, defendant and plaintiff engaged in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve their differences. During this time, defendant also opened its ninth and tenth restaurants.
- 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.