Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Crowell v. Campbell Soup Company
Citation:264 F.3d 756
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:
In 1987, Crowell and other farmers in Minnesota and Iowa (plaintiffs) entered into a series of chicken production contracts with Herider Farms, Inc. (“Herider”) (defendant), a subsidiary of the Campbell Soup Company. The farmers were to construct, equip and operate barns in exchange for Herider’s promise to regularly place flocks of newborn chickens with the farmers. The average barn cost $250,000 to construct and had a 40,000 chick capacity. The contract provided that if Herider terminated the contract before 35 to 40 flocks had been placed, then the farmers would still receive compensation for the cost of construction of the barn. In 1997, Herider sent a letter to each of the farmers informing that that it was shutting down its processing plant and would cease placing flocks of chickens with the farmers. The farmers sued Herider, claiming that Herider had terminated their contracts without cause. The farmers alleged that Herider made several pre-contract oral promises that it would only terminate their contracts for cause. The trial court prohibited parol evidence of the pre-contract oral promises on the ground that the contracts were not ambiguous as to Herider’s right to terminate the contracts without cause.
- 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.