Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Penncro Associates, Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
Citation:499 f.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007)
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:
Sprint, a national telecommunications company, entered an agreement with Penncro. Under the agreement, customers with overdue Sprint accounts trying to make outgoing calls were automatically routed to centers run by one of the three vendors, based on which hone had the shortest estimated wait time. Under the terms, Penncro agreed to maintain staffing levels sufficient to provide Sprint with 80,625 productive hours per month. The hours Penncro provided, however, were of sufficiently poor quality to rank Penncro last among Sprint’s three vendors. In November 2004, Penncro sued Sprint for breach of the parties’ contract, claiming that Sprint was liable for breach of contract as a matter of law because Sprint’s stated reason for termination was erroneous.
- 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.