Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Dawson
L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co.
Citation:178 F.2d 182
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:
Armstrong Co. (Buyer) purchased four “Refiners” from Albert Co. (Seller). Two of the four “Refiners” were delivered in August of 1943, but the other two were not delivered until August or September of 1945. Due to the delay, Armstrong Co. refused to accept all four “Refiners” in October 1945. Albert Co. brought suit against Armstrong Co. for the price of the “Refiners” and Armstrong Co. counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial court dismissed both claims, but awarded Albert Co. the value without interest of part of the equipment delivered (a motor and accessories). Both parties appealed.
On appeal, the Court found that the Albert Co. was entitled to recover the fair market value of the equipment actually delivered ($4,590) plus interest; however, Armstrong Co. had justifiably rejected the refiners. Armstrong Co. claimed expenses it had incurred in reliance of the promise: (1) investment in a “reclaim department,” $118,478; (2) cost of “rubber scrap,” $27,555.63; (3) cost of the foundation laid for the “Refiners,” $3,000.
- 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.