Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.
Citation:251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. (“Great Minneapolis”) (defendant) published an advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper for three fur coats “worth to $100” that would be sold for $1 each on a “first come first served” basis. A few days later, Great Minneapolis published another advertisement in the same newspaper for a black lapin stole worth $139.50 that would be sold for $1 on a “first come first served” basis. Following the publication of each advertisement, Lefkowitz (plaintiff) went to Great Minneapolis’s store and, being the first there, demanded the coat and the stole. Both times he indicated his readiness to pay the $1 purchase price, but Great Minneapolis refused to sell him the merchandise. Great Minneapolis told Lefkowitz that there was a “house rule” that the offers were intended for women only. Lefkowitz sued Great Minneapolis for breach of contract. The trial court found that it was too speculative to ascertain the value of the fur coats but awarded Lefkowitz the full value of the stole minus the $1 advertised purchase price.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.