Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Frier
Laporte v. Blum
Citation:2015 WL 3935297 (2015)
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:
Lawrence and Ruth Burgess (the grandparents) owned land on which they operated a sugarhouse. As the grandparents aged, Plaintiffs, their grandsons, began running the sugarhouse. Eventually, the grandparents deeded the land to Defendants. Despite Defendants’ protests, the grandparents gave Plaintiffs an option to buy the land for $400,000. Plaintiffs also had a lease allowing them to continue sugaring the land prior to execution of the option. Defendants claimed that the fair-market value of the land was more than $400,000. The option included a standard recitation that the option was given for $10 and other good and valuable consideration. There was no evidence that the $10 was ever exchanged. The lawyer who drafted the option testified that in his entire career of closings, he never saw anyone exchange the money recited as consideration. The grandfather’s will stated that it was his intent to provide Plaintiffs the benefits of the option and the lease. It was the grandparents’ desire that Plaintiffs continue to run the sugaring operation after the grandparents’ deaths. The grandparents died several years later, and Plaintiffs continued to run the sugaring operation. Plaintiff William testified that he and his brother would not have continued working on the land without the option and the lease. Defendants then sent Plaintiffs a letter withdrawing their option. Defendants argued that because the $10 recited in the option was never paid, the option was not enforceable because it was not supported by consideration. Plaintiffs then brought suit.
- 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.