Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & 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 party failed to deliver written consent by a deadline, an express condition for a sublease. The court held substantial performance inapplicable, rendering the sublease null and void.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that express conditions precedent to contract formation must be strictly performed; substantial performance is generally insufficient, especially absent forfeiture or unjust enrichment.
Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & 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
Plaintiff Oppenheimer & Co. (Oppenheimer) and defendant Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. (OAD) entered into a letter agreement for a sublease. The agreement stipulated that no sublease would exist “unless and until” Oppenheimer delivered the prime landlord’s written consent for OAD’s proposed “tenant work” by a specified deadline. The agreement further stated that if this condition was not met, the sublease would be “null and void.” Oppenheimer obtained the prime landlord’s consent but only provided oral notice to OAD on the deadline date; the written consent was not delivered until 23 days later. OAD declared the agreement invalid due to the failure to timely deliver the written consent. Oppenheimer sued for breach of contract, arguing substantial performance. The trial court initially barred, then allowed, the substantial performance argument. The jury found for Oppenheimer based on substantial performance. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the Appellate Division reversed. The key issue was whether failure to strictly comply with the express condition of timely written delivery voided the agreement.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the doctrine of substantial performance apply to excuse the non-occurrence of an express condition precedent to the formation of a contract when the contract language unambiguously requires strict compliance and no forfeiture results?
No. The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply to excuse 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 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 occaeca
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 the doctrine of substantial performance apply to excuse the non-occurrence of an express condition precedent to the formation of a contract when the contract language unambiguously requires strict compliance and no forfeiture results?
Conclusion
This case strongly reinforces the principle that express conditions precedent to contract 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 aliqui
Legal Rule
Express conditions precedent, clearly stated by the parties using unmistakable language of 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,
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, emphasizing the distinction between 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 dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply to an express