Law Brief

Law Brief Assignment effect Fans v. parvenu York Highlanders Inc. Facts The New York Highlanders ar building a new stadium, move outered a prototypic come first serve date ticket special. In order to be eligible, buyers would engender to pay a $10,000 licensing fee which would promise a discloseicular(prenominal) scum bag as identified in a stadium after parting diagram. roughly 10,000 fans signed up and direct in their sit downing choices at the 50 yard line (the most in demand(p) berth) and received confirmation from the Highlanders that their set were reserved.Unfortunately, after the licenses were sold to the 10,000 fans, the stadiums dimensions were reduced and just now had 5,000 available seats on the 50 yard line. The Highlanders announced that 5,000 of the 10,000 would attempt the preferred sit found on a lottery, and the remaining 5,000 would be turn inn other seats. electrical outlet The complainants be suing the defendant to reimburse a $10,000 fee which guaranteed a special seat in the new stadium. referable to reduced dimensions, the New York Highlanders Inc. would give the plaintiffs different seats Application Referring to the event of Yocca v. Pittsburg Steelers Sports Inc. Yocca was sent a pamphlet granting the right to buy annual season tickets to games thru stadium building licenses. Yocca utilise for the stadium building license and listed his seating preference. The Steelers sent him a garner nonifying him of the section in which his seat was located. A diagram was included with luxuriant parameters of the section, but it differed from the original tracts diagram. The Steelers also sent Yocca documents including a clause that read, This parallelism contains the entire system of the parties. Yocca signed the documents, and the Steelers told him the circumstantial 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 imperious court. Since the parties, without any fraud or mistake, switch purposely put their arrangements in writing, the law states the writing to be the precisely yard of their contract. All preceding(prenominal) negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements can not be combined or added to evidence. erst a writing is determined to be the parties entire compress, the parol evidence prescript applies and evidence of any anterior written negations or agreements nvolving the same posit matter as the contract is approximately always inadmissible to excuse or vary the price of the contract. Because the plaintiffs found their kick on the lease 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 the y were guaranteed to have.The fans signed up for their seat choices and received confirmation that the seats were reserved, same as Yoccas agreement with the Steelers. A few differences mingled with these two cases argon that Yocca signs a clause that reads, This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. But this clause was signed subsequently he applied for the SBL documents. With the Highlanders case, we are not giving enough training as to what the fans signed off to, but we can make an supposal that the fans signed off to a similar clause because they both are applying for stadium building license.Also, in Yoccas case the stadium was not reducing its dimensions. Both cases had plaintiffs get 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 plaintiffs signed off on the SBL which is the just now evidence of their agreement . Seeing as to the defendant violating the agreement, the plaintiffs are win 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 plaintiffs 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 solicit 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_pg2Law BriefLaw 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 fe e 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. Once a writing is determined to be the par ties 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 Yoccas agreement with the Steelers. A few differences between these two cases are that Yocca signs a clause that reads, 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 Yoccas case the stadium was not reducing its dimensions. Both cases had plaintiffs purchasing 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 plaintiffs signed off on the SBL which is the only evidence of their agreement. Seeing as to the defendant violating the agreement, the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs based their case complaint that the defendant violated the terms of the Stadiu m 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