'Law Brief\r'

' law Brief Assignment parapraxis: Fans v. tonic York Highlanders Inc. Facts: The New York Highlanders ar construct a refreshed-fashioned argona, take outered a setoff come first work flavour ticket special. In sight to be eligible, buyers would have to pay a $10,000 licensing salute which would insure a specific tin bottomland as place in a stadium position plat. to the highest degree 10,000 fans sign(a) up and direct in their locate choices at the 50 yard get out (the most(prenominal) desired position) and received confirmation from the Highlanders that their position were reserved.Unfortunately, afterwards the licenses were sold to the 10,000 fans, the stadiums dimensions were reduced and tho had 5,000 purchasable sit on the 50 yard line. The Highlanders proclaimed that 5,000 of the 10,000 would adhere the preferred screwinging base on a lottery, and the remaining 5,000 would be given new(prenominal) seats. screw: The plaintiffs are suing the suspect to reimburse a $10,000 compensation which guaranteed a specific seat in the new stadium. Due to reduced dimensions, the New York Highlanders Inc. would give the plaintiffs antithetical seats Application: Referring to the type of Yocca v. Pittsburg Steelers Sports Inc. Yocca was sent a brochure granting the right to buy one-year season tickets to games thru stadium construction licenses. Yocca applied for the stadium building license and listed his seating preference. The Steelers sent him a earn nonifying him of the section in which his seat was located. A diagram was included with detailed parameters of the section, but it differed from the pilot film brochures diagram. The Steelers too sent Yocca documents including a member that read,” This savvy contains the accurate discernment of the single outies. ” Yocca write the documents, and the Steelers told him the specific side of the seats.When he arrived to the stadium, the seat was non where he evaluate it to be. Yocca filed a suit against the Steelers, the defendants appealed to the state supreme judgeship. Since the parties, without either role player or mistake, have purposely put their arrangements in writing, the law states the writing to be the only licence of their agreement. All foregoing negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements can not be combined or added to proof. â€Å" one time a writing is determined to be the parties constitutional contract, the parol evidence rule applies and evidence of any previous indite negations or agreements nvolving the homogeneous idea return as the contract is almost always impermissible to formulate or vary the foothold of the contract. Because the plaintiffs based their flush on the claim that the defendants profaned the terms of the brochure, and the cost held the brochure as not part of the contract, the case was dismissed. The Yocca v. Pittsburg Steelers Sports Inc case is alike to the Fans v. New Y ork Highlanders Inc, in which the fan(s) give for specific seats that they were guaranteed to have.The fans write up for their seat choices and received confirmation that the seats were reserved, same as Yocca’s agreement with the Steelers. A some differences betwixt these two cases are that Yocca signs a article that reads, â€Å"This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. ” But this clause was signed AFTER he applied for the SBL documents. With the Highlanders case, we are not giving enough information as to what the fans signed off to, but we can view as an trust that the fans signed off to a similar clause because they both are applying for stadium building license.Also, in Yocca’s case the stadium was not reduction its dimensions. Both cases had plaintiffs purchasing â€Å"specific” seats in which they were guaranteed and resulting in having a different seat or wanting reimbursement. With the fans v. Highlanders, there was no brochure or previous negations; the plaintiff’s signed off on the SBL which is the only evidence of their agreement. visual perception as to the defendant violating the agreement, the plaintiff’s are subject to a reimbursement. Decision: In a court of law, the parties’ entire contract (the Stadium make permit Document) is the only evidence of their agreement.All negations, conversations, and brochures cannot be added to parol evidence. Because the plaintiff’s based their case complaint that the defendant violated the terms of the Stadium Building License, the defendants owe the fans a reimbursement of $10,000. Citations: 1. Clarkson, Miller. Business Law. 11. Yocca v. Pittsburg Steeler Sports, Inc. , Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2004 578 Pa. , 854 A. 2D, 425: Pages 313-314. 2. http://www. associatedcontent. com/article/23473/how_to_write_a_legal_brief_pg2\r\nLaw Brief\r\nLaw Brief Assignment Case: Fans v. New York Highlanders Inc. Facts: The New York Highlanders are building a new stadium, offered a first come first serve season ticket special. In order to be eligible, buyers would have to pay a $10,000 licensing fee which would guarantee a specific seat as identified in a stadium seating diagram. About 10,000 fans signed up and sent in their seating choices at the 50 yard line (the most desired seats) and received confirmation from the Highlanders that their seats were reserved.Unfortunately, after the licenses were sold to the 10,000 fans, the stadiums dimensions were reduced and only had 5,000 available seats on the 50 yard line. The Highlanders announced that 5,000 of the 10,000 would get the preferred seating based on a lottery, and the remaining 5,000 would be given other seats. Issue: The plaintiffs are suing the defendant to reimburse a $10,000 fee which guaranteed a specific seat in the new stadium. Due to reduced dimensions, the New York Highlanders Inc. would give the plaintiffs different seats Application: Referring to the case of Yocca v. Pittsburg Steelers Sports Inc. Yocca was sent a brochure granting the right to buy annual season tickets to games thru stadium building licenses. Yocca applied for the stadium building license and listed his seating preference. The Steelers sent him a letter notifying him of the section in which his seat was located. A diagram was included with detailed parameters of the section, but it differed from the original brochures diagram. The Steelers also sent Yocca documents including a clause that read,” This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. ” Yocca signed the documents, and the Steelers told him the specific location of the seats.When he arrived to the stadium, the seat was not where he expected it to be. Yocca filed a suit against the Steelers, the defendants appealed to the state supreme court. Since the parties, without any fraud or mistake, have purposely put their arrangements in writing, the law states the writing to be the only evidence of their agreement. All previous negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements can not be combined or added to evidence. â€Å"Once a writing is determined to be the parties entire contract, the parol evidence rule applies and evidence of any previous written negations or agreements nvolving the same subject matter as the contract is almost always inadmissible to explain or vary the terms of the contract. Because the plaintiffs based their complaint on the claim that the defendants violated the terms of the brochure, and the court held the brochure as not part of the contract, the case was dismissed. The Yocca v. Pittsburg Steelers Sports Inc case is similar to the Fans v. New York Highlanders Inc, in which the fan(s) paid for specific seats that they were guaranteed to have.The fans signed up for their seat choices and received confirmation that the seats were reserved, same as Yocca’s agreement with the Steelers. A few differences between these two ca ses are that Yocca signs a clause that reads, â€Å"This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. ” But this clause was signed AFTER he applied for the SBL documents. With the Highlanders case, we are not giving enough information as to what the fans signed off to, but we can make an assumption that the fans signed off to a similar clause because they both are applying for stadium building license.Also, in Yocca’s case the stadium was not reducing its dimensions. Both cases had plaintiffs purchasing â€Å"specific” seats in which they were guaranteed and resulting in having a different seat or wanting reimbursement. With the fans v. Highlanders, there was no brochure or previous negations; the plaintiff’s signed off on the SBL which is the only evidence of their agreement. Seeing as to the defendant violating the agreement, the plaintiff’s are subject to a reimbursement. Decision: In a court of law, the parties’ entire contrac t (the Stadium Building License Document) is the only evidence of their agreement.All negations, conversations, and brochures cannot be added to parol evidence. Because the plaintiff’s based their case complaint that the defendant violated the terms of the Stadium Building License, the defendants owe the fans a reimbursement of $10,000. Citations: 1. Clarkson, Miller. Business Law. 11. Yocca v. Pittsburg Steeler Sports, Inc. , Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2004 578 Pa. , 854 A. 2D, 425: Pages 313-314. 2. http://www. associatedcontent. com/article/23473/how_to_write_a_legal_brief_pg2\r\n'