Arabian Score, a Minnesota Limited Partnership v. Lasma Arabian Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership and Lasma Corporation, an Arizona Corporation Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A buyer purchased a stallion whose price included promotional services. After the horse died, the court denied the buyer’s request for a refund of unspent promotional funds, holding that the contract allocated the foreseeable risk of death to the buyer.
Legal Significance: A party cannot invoke the doctrines of impossibility or commercial frustration when the supervening event was foreseeable and the contract explicitly allocated the risk of that event to the complaining party.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Arabian Score, a limited partnership, purchased an Arabian colt named Score from Lasma for $1 million. The contract specified that $250,000 of the purchase price was for a five-year promotional campaign to be managed by Lasma. The agreement included a clause stating, “Risk of loss passes upon closing,” and that the buyer accepted the horse “AS IS,” with all implied warranties and consequential damages excluded. Arabian Score subsequently purchased a mortality insurance policy on the horse. Less than a year later, Score died. At the time of death, Lasma had spent only $52,891 of the $250,000 promotional budget. Arabian Score sued to recover the unspent balance, arguing that the horse’s death rendered the promotional services impossible to perform and frustrated the purpose of that portion of the contract. Lasma countered that it could still perform, as promoting deceased stallions to enhance the value of their progeny was a common industry practice. Another contract clause provided for a refund if a third-party entity declared Score ineligible for its breeding program, but no such declaration was made.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a party be excused from its contractual obligations and recover payment under the doctrine of commercial frustration when a supervening event was foreseeable and the contract allocated the risk of that event to that party?
No. The court affirmed summary judgment for the seller, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercit
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a party be excused from its contractual obligations and recover payment under the doctrine of commercial frustration when a supervening event was foreseeable and the contract allocated the risk of that event to that party?
Conclusion
This case illustrates that courts will strictly enforce contractual risk-allocation provisions, and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
Legal Rule
Under Arizona law, the doctrine of commercial frustration does not apply if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d
Legal Analysis
The court rejected Arabian Score's claim based on the doctrines of impossibility Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A buyer of a $1 million horse sued to recover unspent