Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Weitz Company, LLC v. Hands, Inc.
Citation:294 Neb. 215 (2016)
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 2011, the Good Samaritan invited Weitz and other general contractors to bid on a proposed nursing facility. Weitz was looking for a subcontractor. On bid day, H & S sent Weitz a bid for the plumbing and HVAC parts of the project. The head of Weitz told the head of H & S’ engineering department that Weitz had won the bidding and had carried the H & S number. He said that the told H & S that “we used its number in our bid, and we were prepared to enter into a contract with H & S and move forward.” Weitz signed a contract with Good Samaritan for the base bid of $9.2 million. However, Weitz and H & S could not come to terms. The magnitude of H & S’ error kept growing and eventually ballooned to more than $430,000. In October, Weitz informed H & S that it would other subcontractors. Weitz did not try to withdraw its bid from Good Samaritan because of its dispute with H & S. Instead, it completed the project with other plumbing and HVAC subcontractors. Weitz argued that promissory estoppel bound H & S to its bid because Weitz reasonably and foreseeably relied on its bid.
- 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.