Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Frier
Nanakuli Paving & Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co., Inc.
Citation:664 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1981)
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:
Defendant contracted with Plaintiff to supply asphalt to Plaintiff. The contract set the price as the price posted by Defendant at the time of delivery. For several years Defendant maintained the initial price for Plaintiff. Defendant later increased the price in a letter giving Plaintiff one-day notice of the change. Plaintiff brought a breach of contract suit, claiming that the contract contained an implied price-protection requirement, which was a customary trade practice in the Hawaiian asphalt industry. Defendant countered that no such customary trade practice existed and that the contract terms controlled the price. Plaintiff argued that even if price protection was not a term of the contract, Defendant did not exercise good faith by giving only a one-day notice of the price increase. The jury ruled in favor of Plaintiff. The jury found that Defendant breached the contract by failing to offer price protection. The jury also found that Defendant did not exercise good faith due to its failure to provide advance notice of the new price. Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the district court granted that motion. Plaintiff appealed.
- 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.