Connection lost
Server error
Brush Grocery Kart, Inc. v. Sure Fine Market, 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: A commercial tenant exercised an option to purchase but vacated before closing. When hail damaged the property, the Colorado Supreme Court held the seller bore the risk of loss because the buyer was not in possession, entitling the buyer to price abatement.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under Colorado law, the risk of casualty loss to real property during the executory period of a sale contract remains with the vendor unless the vendee is in possession, regardless of equitable conversion.
Brush Grocery Kart, Inc. v. Sure Fine Market, 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
Brush Grocery Kart, Inc. (Brush) leased commercial property from Sure Fine Market, Inc. (Sure Fine) with an option to purchase. Brush exercised the option. A dispute arose over the purchase price, determined by appraisal. Before the price was finalized and before closing, Brush vacated the premises, returned the keys, and discontinued its casualty insurance. Subsequently, a hail storm caused $60,000 in damage to the property. Neither party had insurance at the time of loss. Brush sued for specific performance and price determination; Sure Fine counterclaimed. The trial court, affirmed by the court of appeals, applied the doctrine of equitable conversion, finding Brush became the equitable owner upon exercising the option and thus bore the risk of loss. Brush appealed, arguing it was not in possession and therefore should not bear the risk.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a vendee who has exercised an option to purchase real property, but is not in possession and has not received legal title, bear the risk of casualty loss to the property occurring during the executory period of the contract?
Reversed. Brush, the vendee, did not bear the risk of loss because 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
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
Does a vendee who has exercised an option to purchase real property, but is not in possession and has not received legal title, bear the risk of casualty loss to the property occurring during the executory period of the contract?
Conclusion
This decision establishes that possession is the determinative factor for allocating 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 c
Legal Rule
In Colorado, the risk of casualty loss to real property during 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 pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui
Legal Analysis
The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the lower courts' application of equitable conversion 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Colorado adopts the possession rule for risk of loss in real
