Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Empire Machinery Co. v. Litton Business Telephone Systems
Citation:115 Ariz. 568, 566 P.2d 1044 (1977)
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:
The plaintiff is the dealer for a tractor company in Arizona. In summer 1973, the plaintiff became interested in acquiring interconnect telephone systems, where the telephone customer owns switching equipment, rather than having the equipment be owned by the telephone company. The defendant manufactures and sells interconnect telephones, and it sent the plaintiff a card sharing the benefits of a Litton telephone system and asking the plaintiff to return an enclosed card if interested in buying from the defendant. The plaintiff returned the card and the defendant made contact with the plaintiff, during which the defendant explained that a new “Superplex” telephone system was being developed and would be available in approximately a year. The plaintiff expressed interested in this new system, and the parties began negotiating a deal. Ultimately, the defendant submitted a letter to the plaintiff on July 30, 1973, that called for the installation of the older system system model which would eventually be replaced at a later date and at no extra cost by the Superplex system. The plaintiff agreed to this deal and signed an Equipment Sales Agreement, which was contingent upon the defendant signing and executing the agreement in its home office. The defendant did not sign that portion of the agreement. The plaintiff then purchased $12,000 worth of electrical equipment in anticipation of the telephone equipment that never shipped. The defendant then encountered issues with the Superplex system and tendered back the plaintiff’s payment.
- 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.