Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Canusa Corporation v. A & R Lobosco, Inc.
Facts
The Plaintiff, Canusa Corporation (the "Plaintiff"), is in the business of recycling and brokering waste paper. The Plaintiff seeks damages for lost sales and attorneys fees as a result of an alleged breach of contract by the Defendant, A&R Lobosco, Inc. (the "Defendant"). The Defendant does various things, including selling the recycled paper to paper mills. In late 1992, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the City of New York to accept "850 tons per week (3,400-3,500 tons per month) of material to be recycled." The Defendant needed to purchase a baler to process the recycled paper and did so through the Plaintiff because they would provide financing. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an "Output Agreement" (the "Agreement") "stating that Lobosco would initially ship 1100 tons per month of number 8 quality old news print (ONP 8) per month to Canusa in 1993, and 1500 tons per month thereafter (1994-97)." Both parties understand this number was the minimum number of tons the Defendant was obligated to provide the Plaintiff per month. The Agreement also stated that the price per ton would be set each month. ONP 8 was defined as "anything that normally comes in a household newspaper." Two other categories of materials provided for in the agreement include outthrows and prohibitives. No prohibitives were allowed by the contract, but a certain percentage of outthrows was acceptable. There were many problems with the Agreement, and the Defendant only came close to the 1500 ton per month requirement during one month. • During the trial, Michael Lobosco ("Mr. Lobosco") offered certain reasons why the Defendant corporation never reached the requisite amount. In September 1993, the Plaintiff offered to accept 500 tons per month of ONP 7/8 in instead of the higher quality ONP 8. Mr. Lobosco never signed the agreement memorializing this, but did act in accordance to it. The Defendant again never reached the requisite amount. In January of 1994, the Plaintiff offered to scrap the agreement and charge the Defendant $3.00 per ton. Another offer to modify occurred in March of 1994, which the Defendant never accepted. On June 27, 1994, the Plaintiff filed this action for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement and replevin of the baler. The only claim before the court was the breach of contract claim.
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.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.