Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Frier
Krafsur v. UOP (In re El Paso Refinery, L.P.)
Citation:196 B.R. 58 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1996)
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:
El Paso Refinery, L.P. owned and operated a petroleum refinery under a licensing contract to use refining technology that was developed by Defendant. The contract required El Paso to pay Defendant $1.97 million in royalties. El Paso filed for bankruptcy, and the refinery was conveyed to Refinery Holding Company (RHC). Defendant and RHC entered into a new licensing contract for the technology used at the refinery. That contract required RHC to pay UOP $3.7 million in royalties. Defendant filed a claim against El Paso in the bankruptcy action for $4 million in unpaid royalties from El Paso. Plaintiff brought an action objecting to Defendant’s claim, arguing that Defendant’s claim should be mitigated by the royalty payments from RHC. Defendant argued that it was a lost-volume seller.
- 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.