Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Bomberger v. McKelvey Case Brief

California Supreme Court1950Docket #869643
35 Cal. 2d 607 220 P.2d 729 1950 Cal. LEXIS 369 Contracts Property Torts

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

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

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A contractor ignored the property owner’s order to stop demolition because the contractor needed scarce salvage materials from the building. The court allowed the contractor to recover the full contract price, finding an exception to the duty to mitigate damages.

Legal Significance: This case establishes that a non-breaching party may continue performance after a repudiation and recover the full contract price if damages are inadequate and specific performance would be available, creating a significant exception to the duty to mitigate damages.

Bomberger v. McKelvey 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

Plaintiffs sold several lots to defendants. A component of the sale was a separate agreement wherein plaintiffs would demolish an existing building on the property for $3,500. The parties understood that plaintiffs would retain the salvaged materials from the demolition. Plaintiffs specifically needed the plate glass and skylights from the old building, which were scarce and subject to governmental priority, to complete construction on a new building for a third party. In reliance on this, plaintiffs designed the new building to accommodate these specific materials. Subsequently, defendants’ own construction plans were delayed, and they sent a written notice to plaintiffs ordering them to halt the demolition. Plaintiffs, needing the scarce materials to finish their other project, disregarded the notice, entered the property, demolished the building, and took the salvage. When defendants refused to pay the $3,500, plaintiffs sued for the contract price. Defendants filed a cross-complaint for trespass and waste.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: May a party to an executory contract continue performance and recover the full contract price after the other party has repudiated, if the non-breaching party has a unique interest in the subject of the performance that makes a remedy of damages inadequate?

Yes. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that they 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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

May a party to an executory contract continue performance and recover the full contract price after the other party has repudiated, if the non-breaching party has a unique interest in the subject of the performance that makes a remedy of damages inadequate?

Conclusion

This case provides a key precedent illustrating that the duty to mitigate 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 ullam

Legal Rule

While a party to an executory contract generally has the power to 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

Legal Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the general rule that a party 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 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 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 do

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A party may continue performance of a contract after repudiation if
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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Law school: Where you spend three years learning to think like a lawyer, then a lifetime trying to think like a human again.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+