Contracts Law In Action

Shirley MacLaine Briefed (by 1 student and his thoughts on briefing cases)

Briefing Cases

• Briefing cases is a very personal exercise, however, every brief must have the staples:
  • Name, facts/issue/procedure, holding/reasoning, and rule of law.
• Different classes demand different styles [e.g. the "Elements" style].
• After my first year I settle on a chart brief, which for me makes class participation & outlining much easier.
• Each of you will develop your own style of briefing, but one thing I would recommend is that you brief all your cases.
  • You will have a much firmer grasp on the course material & you will have tailor-made rules of law for your outlines.
• The following are two common methods of briefing; as an example I briefed your first assigned case Shirley Macl aine Parker v. 20th Century Fox , 474 P.2d 689 ( Cal. 1970) :

• • Class:
  • Deans Fellow:

Shirley Maclaine Parker v. 20th Century Fox , 474 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1970) .

• • Statement:
    • An actress is suing a motion picture co. for breach of K, stemming from motion picture co.’s failure to produce a motion picture, in which actress had a lead role.
  • Facts/Proc edure:
    • ? 20th Cent. Fox appealed from a grant of SJ [summary judgment] entered in π’s favor and the trial court’s awarding π the recovery of agreed compensation under a written K for her services as an actress in a motion picture [Bloomer Girl].
    • ? failed to produce Bloomer Girl [BG] & extended π employment in Big Country [BC].
    • The BC K did not include the same level of director & screen-play input as the BG K.
    • Moreover, BC was set to film in Australia instead of LA & was a completely different genre [Western v. Musical].
    • ?’s only argument was that π’s damages should have been reduced due to her failure to accept a substitute role in BG.
  • Issue:
    • Was the BC role similar & equal employment, such that π’s damages should have been reduced due to her failure to accept said role [i.e. failure to mitigate damages]?
  • Holding & Reasoning [Burke, J.] :
    • Affirmed because ?’s mitigation-of-damages argument failed to show that a different & inferior motion-picture role, offered by ? and rejected by π, was similar employment for which the mitigation issue would have been triggered.
      • BC was not similar employment vis-à-vis BG due to the difference in K terms, locale, & genre à failure to accept BC, as substitute, was not a failure to reasonably mitigate damages.
  • Rule:
    • The measure of recovery by a wrongfully discharged employee is the amount of salary agreed upon for the period of service, less the amount which the employer affirmatively proves the employee has earned or with reasonable effort might have earned from other employment, n ot of an inferior or different kind .
  • Policy:
    • Economic efficiency or duty to forgive? Most likely the former, courts are concerned about resolving disputes efficiently. Morality, if it plays any part, is 2d fiddle (at least in America, no pactum sunt servan da ).
  • Dissent [Sullivan, C.J.] :
    • SJ was improper à there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether ?’s Fox’s offer of the lead role in "BC" was substantially similar to the lead role in "BG". This was a Q of fact that should have been resolved during trial, by the jury.
    • Trial Ct. should have considered the obj. reasonableness of π’s failure to select the alternative role.
  • Class:
  • Deans Fellow:

COMPONENT BREAKDOWN [SAME FOR EITHER METHOD]:

• • Case Name:
    • LRW will teach you how to do this properly but here is the short of it:
      • Case name , Vol. #/Reporter Name/Page # (Ct. Name/Year of Decision).
      • Do not under-line the comma after the case name & always put a period at the end of the case cite.
  • Statement:
    • Who is suing whom, for what, & on what theory? [Sound familiar ;)]
  • Facts/Procedure:
    • Briefly list the pertinent facts & explain, procedurally, how this case reached the Ct. [most law school cases are appellate cases, so what happened at the trial level to cause this case to be accepted for appellate review?]
  • Issue:
    • What is Q of law or fact the Ct. must resolve to dispose of the case?
  • Holding & Reasoning :
    • What does the Ct. decide & why?
  • Rule:
    • What is the "black-letter" rule the judge/justice puts forth to support the holding?
  • Policy:
    • What are the political & socio-economic justifications for the holding [this is a tough one ;)]?
  • Dissent:
    • Who is pissed off at the majority & why?
  • Class [Blue, different colors help distinguish] :
    • Type your class notes here 😉 [Prof. Rosen will say a lot of important things to clear up difficult aspects of the cases you may not have understood the 1st time through]
  • Deans Fellow [Red] :
    • DF notes here 😉