Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Farnsworth
Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc.
Citation:693 N.W.2d 479
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:
Steven Thurman (co-defendant), a real estate agent, entered into a master repurchase and security agreement with Delacy Investments (“Delacy”) (plaintiff). Per this agreement, Delacy had a security interest in all of Thurman’s current and future receivables. Thurman later entered into an independent-contract agreement with Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. (“Re/Max”) (co-defendant). Under his employment relationship with Re/Max, Thurman would pay overhead expenses in exchange for commissions (as long as the commissions did not exceed the overhead). Delacy later agreed to purchase a $10,000 receivable relating to Thurman’s sale of a property located on Keller Lake. Thurman’s overhead of $11,126.38 exceeded the $10,000 receivable and Re/Max refused to pay the assigned receivable. Delacy filed a complaint in district court to recover the $10,000. The district court found that Thurman was not entitled to the receivable and that Delacy could not obtain a greater right than Thurman to that receivable. Delacy appealed.
- 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.