Sterling v. Taylor 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 real estate investor sought to enforce a handwritten sales memo at a price derived from a formula within it. The court refused, finding the proposed price contradicted the specific price also written in the memo, thus failing the Statute of Frauds.
Legal Significance: Clarified that while extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain ambiguous terms in a memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, it cannot be used to prove a term that contradicts the writing itself.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Donald Sterling and Defendant Lawrence Taylor, both experienced real estate investors, negotiated the sale of three apartment buildings. Sterling drafted a handwritten memorandum entitled “Contract for Sale of Real Property,” which identified the properties and contained the price term: “approx 10.468 X gross income[,] estimated income 1.600.000, Price $16,750.°°.” Both parties later acknowledged the intended price was $16,750,000 and that Sterling had accidentally omitted a zero. Sterling initialed the memo as “Buyer,” but the “Seller” line was left blank. Two days later, Taylor signed a confirmation letter that did not mention the price. A dispute arose when Sterling, after reviewing rent rolls showing lower actual income, sought to enforce the contract at a price of approximately $14.4 million, derived by applying the 10.468 multiplier to the actual income figure. Taylor insisted the agreed-upon price was the fixed $16,750,000 stated in the memo. Sterling sued for breach of contract to enforce the sale at the lower, formula-derived price. The trial court granted summary judgment for Taylor, finding the agreement unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a memorandum for the sale of real property satisfy the Statute of Frauds where extrinsic evidence is offered not merely to clarify an ambiguous price term but to prove a price inconsistent with the one explicitly stated in the writing?
No. The memorandum is insufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. While 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 cil
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 memorandum for the sale of real property satisfy the Statute of Frauds where extrinsic evidence is offered not merely to clarify an ambiguous price term but to prove a price inconsistent with the one explicitly stated in the writing?
Conclusion
This case confirms a flexible approach to the Statute of Frauds, allowing 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 no
Legal Rule
A memorandum satisfies the Statute of Frauds if it identifies the essential 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
Legal Analysis
The California Supreme Court first clarified a significant point of law, disapproving 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A memorandum satisfies the Statute of Frauds if its essential terms,