Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
Citation:Supreme Court of California, 1958. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757.
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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 1985, Drennan (Plaintiff), a licensed general contractor, prepared a bid for the “Monte Vista School Job” construction project. Star Paving Co. (Defendant) placed the lowest bid for paving work, $7,131.60, and was awarded the contract by plaintiff. Defendant subsequently informed plaintiff that they had made a mistake with their bid, and that the job could not be done based on the price they had bid. Defendant refused to complete the project for less than $15,000. Plaintiff had relied on defendant’s bid in computing his own bid for the school construction contract. Plaintiff searched for several months before awarding the paving subcontract to L&H Paving Co. for $10,948.60, the lowest bid as possible. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages for defendant’s failure to perform paving work as specified in its bid.
- 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.