University:
University of California, Berkeley
Course:
Law 200.2 | Civil Procedure for LL.M.Students
Academic year:

2020
Views:

33

Pages:

2
Author:

grosikesf4

CASE BRIEFING FORM Groves v. John Wunder Co. Date of Case: 1939 Name of Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota Citation: 205 Minn. 163, 286 N.W. 235 (1939) Casebook page no. 786 Parties’ Identities/Description (How do identities frame/inform the controversy?) AT/P: Groves AE/D: John Wunder Co. Procedural History (What has happened in the courts up to this point?) Groves got damages awarded of $15,000. Appeals. Key Facts (Short narrative of determinative facts and necessary contextual details.) Groves and John Wunder entered into contract for Wunder to remove dirt and gravel from industrial land, which was the most valuable part of the land. Once JW did this, they would get ownership of plant on property. Contract said they had to leave the ground level, aka remove all the dirt and gravel. JW removed only the most valuable dirt and gravel, intentionally breaching the contract and forfeited their right to the property. Trial court awarded damages for difference in value, which amounted to $15,000. Issue(s) (Define the question(s)/dispute(s) before the court.) Can a party intentionally breach and the other party be awarded the difference in value? Summary of the Arguments (only essential points of each party’s argument.) Rule (What rule, definition or standard does this case stand for in that the court used it to solve the parties’ dispute?) Measure of difference in value for damages does not apply when a party intentionally breached; instead standard is what it cost to replace, as long as there is not economic waste. Holding(s) (What is the court’s answer on the issue?) Held that since JW intentionally breached, damages will be awarded for the cost of reparation. Court’s Reasoning (Summarize the court’s thinking, including not only the steps of court’s logic, but also the public policies the court intended to advance.) The element of value is not relevant to a contract like this. This would favor “faithless contractors”. Economic waste- requiring an entire structure to be torn down and replaced. Judgment or Order (What did court do as a result of its holding?) Reversed and new trial. Comments/Reflection (Did the court write any instructive dicta? Do you have questions or concerns about the decision? How does opinion relate to others?)