SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
K & G Construction Co. v. Harris
Citation:
223 Md. 305, 164 A.2d 451Only 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:
K & G Construction Company (hereinafter “K & G”) (plaintiff-appellant) was the general contractor of a housing subdivision project. K & G enlisted a subcontractor, Harris and Brooks (hereinafter “Harris”) (defendant), to do excavating and earth-moving work for the project pursuant to an installment contract. During the course of the work, one of Harris’ employees drove a bulldozer too close to a house, causing a wall to collapse and other damage to the house. The resulting damage amounted to $3,400. K & G refused to pay Harris following the bulldozer accident. Harris discontinued work on the project because of K & G’s refusal to pay. At the time, the value of the work completed by Harris for which he had not been paid was $1,484.50. If Harris had completed the work, he would have made a profit of $1,340. K & G later requested Harris to return and complete work on the project, but Harris refused to do so because of K & G’s previous nonpayment. It cost K & G $450 above the parties’ contract price to find another subcontractor to complete the uncompleted work in the project. K & G sued Harris.
- 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.
10m 12s
