SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Whaley
Jones Associates v. Eastside Properties
Citation:
Court of Appeals of Washington, 1985. 41 Wash. App. 462, 704 P.2d 681.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:
Jones Associates (Plaintiff), an engineering, consulting and surveying firm, entered into a professional services agreement with Eastside Properties, a real estate development corporation (Defendant). Under the contract, plaintiff was to provide a feasibility study, master plan, nine record surveys, and nine short plats for Eastside for $17,480. Defendant modified the contract to contain a condition precedent regarding a satisfactory economic feasibility study. In May of 1978, plaintiff submitted a short plat application to King County Building and Land Development Division for approval. The application was rejected citing a number of conditions that needed to be met. The parties revised their contract so that plaintiff could complete those conditions. The amended contract contained an additional flat fee of $12,550. In 1980, defendant paid plaintiff $15,000, but failed to pay plaintiff the full amount due because plaintiff never obtained approval of the short plat application from King County, and the extension period to obtain approval had failed.
- 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.
6m 19s
