Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Frier
Campbell v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Citation:421 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1969)
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:
Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Earl Daniel, the director of the technical library at Defendant, to reproduce 13 sets of technical-trade journals on microfilm for $30,240. Daniel did not have the authority to make this purchase for Defendant and entered the contract without the knowledge of his superiors. Plaintiff delivered the microfilm to Defendant and destroyed the journals he had reproduced, pursuant to Daniel’s instructions. The microfilm was placed on the library shelves and available to patrons for two months. The microfilm was then returned to Plaintiff by registered mail with a letter from Daniel stating that he had no authority to enter the contract, that there was no contract, and that the price was excessive. Plaintiff refused to accept the microfilm. Defendant continued to refuse to pay for the microfilm, stored the microfilm, and forbade the microfilm’s use. Plaintiff subsequently sued Defendant, claiming an express contract. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because Daniel had no authority to enter into an express contract for Defendant. Plaintiff amended his complaint to set forth a claim of quantum meruit. At trial, the district court instructed the jury that the proper measure of damages was the fair market value of the microfilm. The jury awarded Plaintiff $30,240. Defendant appealed, arguing that in quantum meruit, the proper measure of damages is the amount by which Defendant actually benefited or was unjustly enriched.
- 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.