Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Dawson
Market Street Associates Ltd. 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:
In 1968, J.C. Penney entered into a sale and leaseback agreement with General Electric Pension Trust. Penney sold the property to the pension trust with a 25 year lease back to Penney. Under Paragraph 34 of the lease, the lessee was entitled to “request Lessor to finance the costs and expenses of construction for additional Improvements upon the premises” provided the costs are at least $250,000. In turn, the pension trust agreed “to give reasonable consideration to providing the financing of such additional Improvements and Lessor and Lessee shall negotiate in good faith concerning the construction of such Improvements and the financing…” Furthermore, in the event negotiations failed, Paragraph 34 provided for lessee to repurchase the property at roughly the same price Penney sold it to the pension trust plus 6 percent a year for each year following the sale.
In 1987, Penney assigned its lease for a shopping center in Milwaukee, WI to Market Street. In 1988, Market Street received an inquiry from a drugstore chain to open a store in the shopping center. Market Street was unable to obtain financing from a bank for the necessary improvements without a mortgage on the shopping center. Market Street then decided to attempt to purchase the shopping center from the pension trust. Market Street’s general partner, Orenstein, attempted to contact Erb of the pension trust via phone but was unsuccessful. Orenstein sent Erb a letter in June 1988 expressing interest in purchasing the shopping center. Erb’s associate called Orenstein and indicated an interest in selling the property for $3 million. On July 28, 1988, Orenstein sent another letter requesting $2 million in funding for improvements on the shopping center. On August 16, 1988, Orenstein sent a follow-up letter because he had not received a response, however, the next day Orenstein received a letter from Erb dated August 10 denying the financing request because it did not meet the pension trust’s investment criteria. On August 22, Ornstein responded in a letter that Market Street would find financing elsewhere. However, on September 27, 1988, Orenstein sent Erb a letter stating that Market Street was exercising its option to purchase the property pursuant to Paragraph 34 of the lease. The pension trust refused to sell.
- 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.