Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Dawson
Lakshmi Grocery & Gas, Inc. v. GRJH, Inc.
Citation:138 A.D. 3d 1290, 30 N.y.S.3d 743.
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:
The plaintiff and third-party defendants entered into a combined lease and contractor agreement with defendant to run a gas station and convenience store in New York. Prior to entering into the contract, third-party defendant, Sharma, requested copies of the store’s inside sales figures and asked to inspect the store’s books. In September 2010, Alicia Metz, the defendant’s president, sent an email to Sharma advising that sales for August 2010 totaled approximately $22,000. The plaintiff and third-party defendants were not allowed to inspect the store’s books prior to signing the agreement and could only visit the store if they posed as a customer. After taking over the store, plaintiff and third-party defendants discovered that the August 2010 sales were actually approximately $15,500. Metz later explained that the sales numbers were “representative sales” based on August 2009 because the completed figures for August 2010 were not available to her at the time of the email.
- 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.