Professional Bull Riders, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc. 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: An oral two-year sponsorship contract included an option to terminate after one year. The court held this option created an alternative performance that could be completed within a year, thus removing the contract from the Statute of Frauds’ writing requirement and making it enforceable.
Legal Significance: Establishes that an oral contract with a multi-year term is not void under the Statute of Frauds if it contains an option for an alternative performance that can be completed within one year, even if that option is not exercised.
Professional Bull Riders, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc. 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
Professional Bull Riders, Inc. (PBR) alleged it had an oral sponsorship agreement with AutoZone, Inc. based on the terms of an un-signed written proposal. The proposed agreement specified a two-year term, from late 2000 to the end of 2002. Crucially, it contained a provision granting AutoZone the option to terminate the agreement and its sponsorship obligations for the second year by providing written notice before August 15, 2001. AutoZone did not sign the agreement or provide termination notice by the specified date. In January 2002, AutoZone informed PBR it would not sponsor events for that year. PBR sued for breach of the alleged oral contract. AutoZone moved for summary judgment, arguing the agreement was void under the Colorado Statute of Frauds because its two-year term meant it could not be performed within one year. The district court granted summary judgment for AutoZone. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit then certified the dispositive legal question to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an oral agreement that provides for a definite term of more than one year void under the Statute of Frauds if it also grants one party an option to complete an alternative performance within one year?
No. The oral agreement is not void under the Statute of Frauds. 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
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
Is an oral agreement that provides for a definite term of more than one year void under the Statute of Frauds if it also grants one party an option to complete an alternative performance within one year?
Conclusion
This case clarifies that an option to terminate a multi-year contract 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
Legal Rule
An oral agreement is not void under the one-year provision of 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 ve
Legal Analysis
The court began its analysis by noting the historical tendency to narrowly 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 culp
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An oral contract for a term exceeding one year is **not