Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Templin
Krack v. Metal-Matic
Citation:794 F.2d 1440 (1986)
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:
Krack Corp. (defendant) is a manufacturer of cooling units. The cooling units contain steel tubes which the defendant has bought from Metal-Matic, Inc. (third-party defendant) for about ten years. The defendant would send a blanket purchase order to the third-party defendant for the year, and then send release purchase orders throughout the year requesting shipping of the material. The third-party defendant would send an acknowledgement form and ship the tubing. The acknowledgement form contained a disclaimer of all liability for consequential damages from its tubing and contained a clause limiting the third-party defendant’s liability for defects in the tubing to a refund of the purchase price or repair or replacement of the tubing. The defendant objected to these terms at least once, but the third-party defendant refused to make changes and the business relationship continued as normal. In 1981, the defendant sold one of its cooling units to Diamond Growers, Inc. (plaintiff). The plaintiff sued the defendant after it discovered a hole in the steel tubing, causing an ammonia leak in the plaintiff’s warehouse. The defendant brought a third-party complaint against the third-party defendant for contribution or indemnification.
- 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.