Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Frier
Morin Building Products Co. v. Baystone Construction, Inc.
Citation:22 Ill.717 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1983)
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:
General Motors hired Defendant to build a new addition to its Chevrolet factory in Indiana. Defendant hired Plaintiff to complete the aluminum walls for the addition. Pursuant to the contract, the walls were to be made out of “mill-finish” aluminum; a grade of aluminum characterized by its raw and sometimes uneven appearance. The contract additionally provided that all work was subject to final approval by General Motors’ agent, and that his “decision in matters relating to artistic effect shall be final, if within the terms of the Contract Documents.” Plaintiff successfully completed the walls. However, when viewed from an angle in the sunlight, the walls did not have a uniform appearance. The General Motors agent rejected the walls, and Defendant hired another contractor to replace them. The second walls were accepted, despite still having a slightly uneven appearance when viewed at an angle in the sunlight. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff for the balance of the contract price ($23,000) and Plaintiff successfully brought suit for the balance. Defendant 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.