SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Burger King v. Family Dining, Inc.
Citation:
426 F. Supp. 485 (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:
On May 10, 1963, Family Dining entered into a 90-year Territorial Agreement with Burger King. Under the Agreement, Family Dining was to have the exclusive right to develop the Bucks and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania with Burger King franchised restaurants. Pursuant to the agreement, Family Dining was to open and operate one new restaurant per year for the first 10 years of the contract and continually maintain not less than 10 restaurants for the remaining 80 years of the contract. If Family Dining failed to meet this schedule the agreement was to terminate.
In 1967, Family Dining fell behind schedule and Burger King agreed to waive the development rate pursuant to a Modification Agreement entered on May 1, 1968. By mid-1968, the fourth and fifth restaurants were opened. In 1969, Family Dining encountered delays with site approval and was granted a one-month extension by Burger King. The sixth restaurant was opened on October 1, 1969. By 1970, Burger King was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pillsbury Company and in August 1970, the company’s National Development Committee rejected Family Dining’s choice of location for the seventh restaurant. However, the eighth restaurant was opened ahead of schedule on October 7, 1970 and in December 1971, the Committee approved two more Family Dining sites.
In early 1972, Family Dining again fell behind on development and by 1973 neither the ninth or tenth restaurant were opened or under construction. On May 23, 1973, Burger King sent a letter to Family Dining advising that it was in default of its Territorial Agreement and after a number of back-and-forth communications Burger King finally advised Family Dining the contract was terminated.
- 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.
6m 19s
