Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Taylor Equipment, Inc. v. John Deere Co.
Citation:98 F.3d 1028 (1996).
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:
Midcon was a dealer of John Deere equipment in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Sioux City, Iowa. In 1990, Deere learned that Midcon had sold equipment “out of trust” when it failed to timely pay Deere for the equipment sales. Deere notified Midcon that its dealership would be terminated and advised Midcon it would allow it to continue as a dealer for up to eighteen months while it found a buyer. Pursuant to the dealership contract, the contract “[could not] be assigned by the Dealer without prior written consent of [Deere].” In the fall of 1991, Midcon entered into a tentative agreement to sell almost all its assets to Interstate Companies of Minnesota, Inc. However, Deere advised Interstate it would not approve the assignment of Midcon’s dealership contract unless Interstate improved its financial strength with additional equity capital. Interstate declined and the assignment was refused. In 1992, Midcon sold its assets to two other companies for $1,715,000 less than the Interstate deal.
- 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.