Writing Case Summary

WRITING CASE SUMMARY A case summary is a summary of a judicial decision of a case law authority. It provides a quick and easy means for you to understand the decision, learn the content of the decision and to prepare the way for critical reflection. The following is the suggested format for case summary: 1) Citation 2) Nature of the case 3) The facts 4) Issue Name of the case (e.g. Ignatius v Bell [1913] 2 FMSLR 115) Why there is a legal action before the court, the nature of that action, and what remedy is being sought (E.g. The plaintiff sued for specific performance due to breach of an agreement). Include facts that are relevant to the legal issues. Write 3-5 sentences. State the legal issue in a form of question (E.g. Is the acceptance of offer complete upon posting?) The key to identifying the issues in a case is to reflect upon who wants what, did they succeed or fail in getting it 5) Rule of law 6) Holding or decision Provide a statement of the general principle of law that the case illustrates (E.g. In cases of acceptance through post, acceptance is complete upon posting). Explain why and how the court applied the general rule of law to the facts of the case. Finish with a statement indicating how the case was finally decided (E.g. The judgment was entered for defendant due to the reason of negligence by the plaintiff even though the option was accepted on 16 August ). Example of case law reading to be summarised is extracted from ‘Business Law, Lee Mei Pheng and Ivan Jeron Detta, 2nd Edition, 2014, Oxford University Press, page 181) 1) Citation: Ignatius v Bell [1913] 2 FMSLR 115 2) Nature of the case: This case relates to communication of acceptance under law of contract. The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an option agreement 3) Facts of the case: irrelevant The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an option agreement dated 20 July 1912 which gave the plaintiff the option of purchasing the defendant’s right over a piece of land. Restructure. The plaintiff sent a notice in registered letter written by his solicitors and posted in Klang on 16 August, the envelope being addressed to the defendant at Lapan Utan Estate, Kuala Selangor. Restructure This letter was not delivered to Lapan Utan Estate, but remained in the post office in Kuala Selangor till the evening of 25 August. He had been away from the estate from 14 – 22 August, and on 25 August, in consequence of the receipt of a letter (of later date than the letter exercising the option), he drove to the post office and then found awaiting him the letter exercising the option. On 10 August, the plaintiff wrote asking for an extension of the option till the end of the month. This extension was refused by the defendant in his letter of 22 August. In the same letter, the defendant intimated that he had had other offers of greater value than the plaintiff’s. Restructure On 23 August, the defendant entered into negotiations with Mohamed Kassim, and gave him an option over the land provisionally for RM5,000, the option being in abeyance until it was known what the plaintiff was going to do. Restructure The plaintiff failed or neglected to tender the purchase-money. The defendant closed the deal with Mohamed Kassim at the end November. Restructure The plaintiff sued the defendant for specific performance of the option agreement. The trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiff for RM1,200 compensation and costs. The defendants appealed. Rewriting the facts in 3-4 sentences Plaintiff accepted an option to purchase defendant’s right over some land by posting a letter on 16 August addressed at Laban Utan Estate, Kuala Selangor. This letter was delivered to the post office of Kuala Selangor and the defendant only received it by 25 August. Plaintiff’s earlier request for extension of the option was refused but the defendant still waited for plaintiff to exercise his option as he had not received the letter of acceptance. When the plaintiff failed to tender the purchasemoney and the defendant closed deal with another, the plaintiff sued the defendant for specific performance of the option agreement. The defendant appealed against the trial judge’s decision. 4) Issue: Is the acceptance of offer complete upon posting by the plaintiff on 16 August? 5) Rule of law: Woodward JC: …[T]he option was duly exercised by plaintiff when the letter was posted. The evidence shows that the parties contemplated that personal service was not required, and that the post office could be used as a means of communicating the acceptance by the plaintiff of the defendant’s proposal. The proposal, it is true, was not made by post, but the agreement provides that the option is to be exercised by a notice in writing, and the defendant’s postal address is given as the place to which the notice was to be sent. …[I]t is clear the parties contemplated the post being used, and under these circumstances section 4 of the Contract Enacment applies, that the acceptance was complete as against the proposer, Mr Bell, when it was put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; in other words, when it was put into the post, on the 16th August. …The defendant did not close with Mohamed Kassim till nearly the end of November. By that time I think he was justified in regarding the bargain with the plaintiff as at an end. I cannot agree with the learned Judge when he says that the ‘plaintiff was ready to pay the money, but was prevented from doing so by the defendant’s absence’. I think that it has been proved that the defendant would have accepted the money long after the time stipulated in the agreement, but the plaintiff neglected to pay it, and that it was through his negligence that the contract was not completed. I think the judgment should be set aside, and judgment entered for defendant with costs… Rephrasing the rule of law The acceptance was complete as against the proposer, when it was put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. 6) Holding or decision: Woodward JC states that when the letter (exercising option) was posted (16 August), that was an acceptance. The acceptance was complete as against the proposer (Mr Bell), when it (letter exercising option) was put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor (letter addressed at Lapan Utan Estate, Kuala Selangor was sent to the post office of Kuala Selangor). However, the appeal by defendant was allowed because the plaintiff failed to provide the purchase-money. 7)