Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Blum
United Airlines, Inc. v. Good Taste, Inc.
Citation:982 P.2d 1259 (1999)
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 1987, Defendants contacted Plaintiff to bid on an in-flight catering contract. After Defendant’s invitation, Plaintiff entered into discussions with Defendant regarding the contract and obligations of the parties. In March 1988, Plaintiff was awarded the catering contract. After winning the contract, and to meet Defendant’s expectations, Plaintiff expanded and spent about one million dollars. In May 1989, Defendant gave Plaintiff a ninety-day notice of termination notifying Plaintiff that its performance under the Agreement would terminate in August 1989.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s contract representative, Groth, assured Plaintiff that Defendant had never used the ninety-day termination provision and that the condition was only an “out” if Defendant ever decided to no longer fly to Anchorage. Plaintiff claims that it would not have expanded at the risk of a no-cause ninety-day termination notice without Groth’s allegedly fraudulent representations regarding the restrictions of the termination provision. Defendant did not dispute those facts but stated during oral argument that Groth would testify that he never made such statements.
- 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.