Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Templin
Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
Citation:552 F.2d 447 (1977)
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:
Harold Lee and his sons Lester and Eric (plaintiffs) owned 50 percent interest in Capitol City Liquor Company, and their family members owned the other half. Prior to this ownership, Harold Lee had worked for Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (defendant), for thirty-six years. The plaintiff’s business generated a large portion of its sales from defendant’s products. When the owners of City Liquor Company were looking to sell their interest in the business, Harold Lee approached Jack Yogman, an executive of Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (defendant) who he had known for thirteen years. Harold offered to sell Yogman the business conditioned on defendant relocating the plaintiffs in a new distributorship of their own in a different city. Yogman’s assistant, John Barth, met with the plaintiffs to negotiate the sale. A written agreement was signed without including the promise to relocate the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued defendant for breach of contract.
- 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.