JJ Shane, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 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 subcontractor sued a general contractor for payment. The court found the contract’s “pay-if-paid” clause unambiguously shifted the risk of owner non-payment to the subcontractor, making the suit premature until the contractor was paid by the project owner.
Legal Significance: Reinforces the Florida standard that a “pay-if-paid” clause can create a valid condition precedent, shifting the risk of owner non-payment to a subcontractor, but only if the contract language is plain and unambiguous.
JJ Shane, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 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
J.J. Shane, Inc. (“Shane”), a subcontractor, entered into an agreement with the general contractor, Recchi America, Inc. (“Recchi”), for work on a public construction project owned by Metropolitan Dade County. When Recchi failed to make full payment, Shane filed a breach of contract action. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the subcontract’s payment provision, which stated: “It is understood by Subcontractor that payment for the work is to be made from funds received from Owner by Contractor in respect to the Work.” Recchi argued this language created a condition precedent, meaning its duty to pay Shane was contingent upon first receiving payment from the county. Shane contended the clause was ambiguous and should be construed as a “pay-when-paid” clause, merely setting a reasonable time for payment rather than shifting the ultimate risk of the owner’s non-payment. It was undisputed that the county had not paid Recchi for the work at issue and that Recchi was actively litigating against the county to recover those funds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a subcontract provision stating that payment to the subcontractor is “to be made from funds received from Owner by Contractor” unambiguously create a condition precedent that shifts the risk of owner non-payment from the general contractor to the subcontractor?
Yes. The court held that the payment provision plainly and unambiguously established 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 conseq
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
Does a subcontract provision stating that payment to the subcontractor is “to be made from funds received from Owner by Contractor” unambiguously create a condition precedent that shifts the risk of owner non-payment from the general contractor to the subcontractor?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that Florida courts will enforce unambiguous "pay-if-paid" clauses as 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 exercita
Legal Rule
While payment by an owner to a general contractor is not typically 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the distinction between two types of payment 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 ad
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract can shift the risk of an owner’s non-payment to