Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Epstein
BV Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v. Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc.
Citation: EWCA Civ 596
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:
The avian flu struck the US in April 2015, causing disastrous effects on suppliers of egg products, like the plaintiff which had to destroy more than half of its own birds. To honor its commitments to buyers, the plaintiff had to find a new supply of egg products. It found the defendant Netherlands-based supplier and made a contract to buy 4200 metric tons of egg product over a two year period for set prices, provided that the procedures in the Netherlands satisfied US regulation authorities supervising the egg business. The relevant US authorities gave approval June 1, 2015. Before that approval came through, the defendant emailed the plaintiff claiming that there were extra regulatory costs and the prices would have to be increased. The plaintiff asked for a breakdown of the extra costs, which the defendant sent, and the plaintiff agreed to the increase in prices. The defendant later informed the plaintiff that its sister company Henningsen would supply some of the product and that Henningsen’s operations had also been approved by the relevant US authorities. As egg prices began to fall, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was failing to meet US regulations. The defendant started proceedings for loss of profit due to the suspension of the contract, and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant acted fraudulently in calculating the price increase, as the increase included the element of profit, rather than just the cost of compliance with US standards.
- 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.