Court of Minneapolis

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 Casehttps://law.unlv.edu/faculty/rowley/Lefkowitz.pdf )(3rd casehttps://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 example thats how the briefs need to be done 10.5 font Arial and 1.15 line spacing in microsoft word

 

Pls do not plagiarize anything

Requirements: 1 Page for each Brief

Answer preview

The case was an appeal for an order given by the Municipal Court of Minneapolis, which denied the defendant’s motion to amend findings of fact or get a new trial. In the order, the plaintiff received $138.50 as damages emanating from the defendant’s breach of its contract with the plaintiff. The defendant declined to sell the plaintiff a piece of fur he advertised in a newspaper. Every Saturday after seeing the advert, the plaintiff was the first person to go to the defendant’s store. However, on the two occasions, he did this, the defendant declined to sell him the item, indicating that it had a house rule, which required that the offer made in the advert only targeted men, and thus, a sale would not be made to a male customer. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s prayer to get the exact worth of the fur coats because it could not ascertain the worth of the product since it was quite uncertain and speculative. In addition, the only evidence of such value was the advert, which indicated that the items were worth $100. The defendant argued that the adverts it placed on newspapers offering the item for sale at a particular price amounted to a unilateral offer, and thus, it can withdraw it at any moment without giving notice.

[3599 Words]

Scroll to Top