Connection lost
Server error
BROWN MACH. v. HERCULES, INC. Case Brief
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
tl;dr: In a classic “battle of the forms,” a seller’s indemnity clause was excluded from a contract because the buyer’s purchase order, deemed the offer, expressly limited acceptance to its own terms. The seller’s responsive form was an acceptance, not a counteroffer.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the application of UCC § 2-207, demonstrating that an offeror can prevent additional terms from becoming part of the contract by including language that expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer.
BROWN MACH. v. HERCULES, INC. 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
Brown Machine (seller) sent Hercules, Inc. (buyer) a price quotation for a trim press. The quote included an indemnity provision in its standard “Terms and Conditions of Sale” and stated that no order would be binding until accepted on Brown’s own acknowledgment form. After the quote’s 30-day expiration, Hercules sent a purchase order that referenced the quote but changed a specification. Hercules’s purchase order form stated in bold print, “THIS ORDER EXPRESSLY LIMITS ACCEPTANCE TO THE TERMS STATED HEREIN… ANY ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT TERMS PROPOSED BY THE SELLER ARE REJECTED…” The purchase order did not contain an indemnity clause. In response, Brown sent its own order acknowledgment form, which reiterated the original specifications and included the same indemnity provision. Hercules replied with a letter correcting a machine specification, stating, “All other specifications are correct.” After an employee was injured using the machine, Brown settled a lawsuit and sought indemnification from Hercules based on the clause in its forms.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under UCC § 2-207, did an indemnity provision contained in a seller’s order acknowledgment become part of the contract when the buyer’s purchase order expressly limited acceptance to its own terms?
No. The indemnification clause did not become part of the contract. The 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 pariatu
IRAC Legal Analysis
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
Under UCC § 2-207, did an indemnity provision contained in a seller’s order acknowledgment become part of the contract when the buyer’s purchase order expressly limited acceptance to its own terms?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear roadmap for the UCC § 2-207 analysis, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Legal Rule
Under UCC § 2-207(2)(a), additional terms proposed in an acceptance do not 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
Legal Analysis
The court conducted a step-by-step analysis under UCC § 2-207. First, it 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 volu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The buyer’s (Hercules) purchase order was the offer, not the seller’s
