Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. v. Brookhaven Manor Water Co.
Citation:532 F.2d 572
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:
Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company (hereinafter “Pittsburgh”) (plaintiff) submitted a proposal to Brookhaven Manor Water Company (hereinafter “Brookhaven”) (defendant) for the construction of a water tank for $175,000. The original proposal incorporated a percentage distribution as terms of payment. The payment terms were altered to provide that 100 percent of the contract price was due and payable within 30 days after the tank had been tested and accepted. Brookhaven received, but refused a loan. Pittsburgh, after learning that Brookhaven had not secured a loan, wrote to Brookhaven requesting that it personally guarantee that it had $175,000 in escrow to be paid to Pittsburgh. Brookhaven failed to provide a personal guarantee, and Pittsburgh took no further steps toward performance. Pittsburgh sued Brookhaven, claiming the latter improperly repudiated their contract.
- 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.