Bomberger v. McKelvey 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 contractor ignored the property owner’s order to stop demolition because the contractor needed scarce salvage materials from the building. The court allowed the contractor to recover the full contract price, finding an exception to the duty to mitigate damages.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a non-breaching party may continue performance after a repudiation and recover the full contract price if damages are inadequate and specific performance would be available, creating a significant exception to the duty to mitigate damages.
Bomberger v. McKelvey Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs sold several lots to defendants. A component of the sale was a separate agreement wherein plaintiffs would demolish an existing building on the property for $3,500. The parties understood that plaintiffs would retain the salvaged materials from the demolition. Plaintiffs specifically needed the plate glass and skylights from the old building, which were scarce and subject to governmental priority, to complete construction on a new building for a third party. In reliance on this, plaintiffs designed the new building to accommodate these specific materials. Subsequently, defendants’ own construction plans were delayed, and they sent a written notice to plaintiffs ordering them to halt the demolition. Plaintiffs, needing the scarce materials to finish their other project, disregarded the notice, entered the property, demolished the building, and took the salvage. When defendants refused to pay the $3,500, plaintiffs sued for the contract price. Defendants filed a cross-complaint for trespass and waste.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a party to an executory contract continue performance and recover the full contract price after the other party has repudiated, if the non-breaching party has a unique interest in the subject of the performance that makes a remedy of damages inadequate?
Yes. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that they 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
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
May a party to an executory contract continue performance and recover the full contract price after the other party has repudiated, if the non-breaching party has a unique interest in the subject of the performance that makes a remedy of damages inadequate?
Conclusion
This case provides a key precedent illustrating that the duty to mitigate 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 ullam
Legal Rule
While a party to an executory contract generally has the power to 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
Legal Analysis
The court began by acknowledging the general rule that a party can 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. 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 do
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party may continue performance of a contract after repudiation if