Law Brief

Law 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 Hi ghlanders 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 Yoc ca’s agreement with the Steelers. A few differences between these two cases 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 contract (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 Law Brief Law 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 Hi ghlanders 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 Yoc ca’s agreement with the Steelers. A few differences between these two cases 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 contract (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