Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A.
Citation:117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 875
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:
Baskin Robbins U.S.A. (hereinafter “Baskin Robbins”) (defendant) intended to close an ice cream manufacturing plant in California. Copeland (plaintiff) was interested in acquiring the plant but made it clear that he would only purchase the plant if Baskin Robbins would purchase the ice cream that was manufactured there. This arrangement was known as “co-packing.” In May 1999, Baskin Robbins sent Copeland a letter with the terms of their co-packing agreement. Under the agreement, Baskin Robbins would purchase seven million gallons of ice cream over a three-year period. In July 1999, Baskin Robbins wrote to Copeland that the company intended to terminate negotiations over the co-packing arrangement and returned Copeland’s deposit. Copeland sued Baskin Robbins for breach of contract.
- 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.