SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Fertico Belgium S.A. v. Phosphate Chemicals Export Ass’n
Citation:
70 N.Y.2d 76, 517 N.Y.S.2d 465, 510 N.E.2d 334Only 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:
Fertico Belgium S.A. (hereinafter “Fertico”) (plaintiff) contracted with Phosphate Chemicals Export Ass’n (hereinafter “Phosphate”) (defendant) to purchase two separate shipments of fertilizer. The first shipment was to be delivered no later than November 20, 1978 and the second was to be delivered by November 30, 1978. Phosphate knew that Fertico needed the fertilizer by the specified delivery dates in order to fulfill a secondary contract with Altawreed, Iraq’s agricultural ministry. Fertico made payment on the first shipment, which Phosphate received. The first shipment of fertilizer was not actually delivered until December 17, 1978. In order to avoid a secondary breach with Altawreed, Fertico purchased the same fertilizer from another company, Unifert. Fertico’s contract with Unifert was $700,000 more than its original contract with Phosphate. Fertico notified Phosphate that the breach of the first shipment presented “huge problems” for them and canceled the second shipment. Despite the breach as to the first shipment, Fertico retained the fertilizer and was left with 15,000 tons of late-delivered fertilizer. Fertico was later able to sell the surplus of fertilizer to another buyer Janssens for a profit of $454,000. Fertico sued Phosphate, seeking damages.
- 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.
9m 25s
