SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Hope’s Architectural Products, Inc. v. Lundy’s Construction, Inc.
Citation:
781 F. Supp. 711 (1991).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:
On June 13, 1988, Lundy’s entered into a construction contract to build an addition on Rushton Elementary School in the Shawnee Mission School District in Kansas. As such, Lundy’s obtained a public works bond to insure any outstanding debts relating to the project. The bond was held by Bank IV. On June 29, Hope’s contracted to manufacture 93 windows for the project. The price of the windows was $55,000 and delivery of the windows was due within 12-14 weeks after approval of the drawings. Hope’s received approval from Lundy’s on July 18 and, thus, delivery was due no later than October 24.
Hope’s production of the windows was delayed, but Hope’s made no request for an extension. On September 27, Lundy’s requested that installation of the windows begin on October 19 and be completed by October 26. Lundy’s wrote again on October 14 threatening to withhold damages if Hope’s did not meet the deadlines. Hope’s did not respond to the letter and the windows were not shipped from Hope’s plant in New York to Kansas City until October 28. Delivery to the construction site was then scheduled for November 4. On November 1, Lundy’s contacted Hope’s and threatened a possible back charge on the contract price for the late delivery. On November 2, Hope’s sent a letter informing Lundy’s it was suspending delivery of the windows until it was provided assurances that there would be no back charge. After not receiving these assurances, Hope’s demanded prepayment in the full amount prior to delivery. On November 7, Lundy’s terminated the contract. On February 15, 1989, Hope’s demanded payment from Bank IV on Lundy’s bond. Bank IV refused to issue 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.
4m 14s
