USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
I am giving Six cases that need to be put in brief form I have an example how the cases need to be (1st Case.
https://casetext.com/case/steinberg-v-chicago-medi…
) (2nd Case
https://law.unlv.edu/faculty/rowley/Lefkowitz.pdf
)(3rd case
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-a…
) (4th Case
https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-app…
) (5th Case
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-cou…
) (6th case
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-cour…
) I am including an
AutoSave
OFF
日
Du
BLW 201 James Staruck 2020 (online) — Saved to my Mac
a
Home
Insert
Draw
Design
Layout
References
Mailings
Review
View
Tell me
Share
o Comments
X
Arial
V
14
v
Ai
Аа у
V
21
AaBbCcDdEe
AaBbCcDdEe
AaBbCcDc
AaBbCcDdEt AaBbc
Paste
B
U vab X
X
三三三三
Normal
No Spacing
E
Heading 1
Heading 2
Title
Av Lv Av
Dictate
Editor
Sensitivity
V
V
Styles
Pane
v
SAMPLE BRIEF
(TITLE)
CASE#1
ROBERTSON vs. KING
Arkansas, 1955
FACTS:
Robertson, a minor, made a contract to purchase a pickup truck for
$1,743.85, less a trade-in allowance of $723.85 on his car. He agreed to
pay the balance in installments. The minor had trouble with the truck, and
after having paid one installment, the truck was destroyed by fire. The
minor sought to avoid his contract and recover the value of his contract
and recover the value of his car which had been sold by the dealer.
The auto company defended that the minor had returned the truck; that the
truck was a necessary, and for this reason the minor could not avoid his
contract; and further that even if the contract could be avoided, they would
not have to return the amount allowed on the trade, but only the
reasonable value of the car at the time it was traded.
ISSUE:
Can the minor avoid his contract?
Must the minor physically return the truck?
Was the car a necessary?
Should the minor recover the trade in allowance or only the reasonable
value of the car?
DECISION:
For ROBERTSON, the minor (Trial Court was reversed).
The minor can avoid his contract; the truck was not a necessary;
The minor need not physically return the truck and he can only recover the
reasonable value of the car he traded.
REASON:
All contracts of minors are voidable. Even contracts for necessaries may
be avoided, although in such a case the minor would be held liable on a
quasi contract for the reasonable value of the necessaries.
The truck was not a necessary for work because he was driven to
work in his father’s truck.
Regarding the trade in. If the auto company had the care they
would have to return it to the minor, but since it has been sold and they are
unable to return it, they must compensate the minor, not for the trade-in
allowance (because this figure was arrived at by reason of the contract and
the contract is being avoided) but they must return to the minor the
reasonable value of the car at the time it was traded in.
As far as returning the truck, this was not properly an issue
because the facts showed that the auto company did, in fact, have the
truck. However, the rule is that a minor who avoids a contract must return
the goods, if he has the goods, or if he cannot, he must tell the other party
where the goods are, etc.
Page 7 of 7
1821 words
[x
English (United States)
Focus
E
–
105%
目
