Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Market Street Associates Limited Partnership v. Frey
Citation:941 F.2d 588
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:
J.C. Penney Company (hereinafter “Penney”) entered into a sale-leaseback agreement with General Electric Pension Trust (hereinafter “the pension trust”) (defendant). Under the agreement, Penney sold properties to the pension trust, which then leased back to Penney. Paragraph 34 of the agreement required the pension trust to finance the costs and expenses of additional improvements to the properties, provided that the amount of the costs and expenses were at least $250,000. Additionally, the agreement provided that the parties should negotiate in good faith concerning the construction of such improvements and, if negotiations failed, then Penney was entitled to repurchase the property. Penney assigned its lease for a Milwaukee shopping center to Market Street Associates (hereinafter “Market Street”) (plaintiff). Market Street wrote to the pension trust formally requesting $2 million in funding for improvements to the shopping center. Market Street had sought other financing sources before turning to the pension trust. In its writing to the pension trust, Market Street did not mention paragraph 34 of the agreement. The pension trust denied the request, stating that it was not interested in making loans for less than $7 million. The pension trust refused to sell the property to Market Street who sued to compel specific performance.
- 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.