Connection lost
Server error
CANTRELL-WAIND & ASSOC. INC. v. GUILLAUME MOTOR., 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 seller allegedly lied about his availability to prevent a real estate closing before a deadline, which would have triggered his duty to pay the broker’s commission. The court held this potential bad faith act created a triable issue of fact regarding breach of contract.
Legal Significance: A party cannot actively and in bad faith prevent the occurrence of a condition precedent to their own contractual duty and then use the non-occurrence of that condition as a defense to performance. This is known as the prevention doctrine.
CANTRELL-WAIND & ASSOC. INC. v. GUILLAUME MOTOR., 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
Appellee Guillaume Motorsports, Inc. leased property to the Bowers with an option to purchase. The agreement provided that the appellant broker, Cantrell-Waind & Assoc., would earn a commission only if the sale closed by August 1, 1996. The Bowers exercised their option in April and secured financing by July 19, expressing a desire to close before the deadline. Guillaume’s president, Williams, first offered the Bowers a price reduction to delay closing until after August 1, which they refused. Subsequently, Williams allegedly informed the bank, attorneys, and title company that he would be out of the country and unavailable to close until after August 1. In reality, Williams was in town during the last week of July. The closing occurred on August 14, and Guillaume refused to pay the commission, arguing the condition precedent (closing by August 1) was not met. The trial court granted summary judgment for Guillaume, finding the commission was “clearly avoidable.” Cantrell-Waind appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a party to a contract breach the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by actively preventing the occurrence of a condition precedent to its own performance in order to avoid that performance?
Yes. The summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded. A 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 of
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 party to a contract breach the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by actively preventing the occurrence of a condition precedent to its own performance in order to avoid that performance?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear application of the prevention doctrine, affirming that 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 nostr
Legal Rule
Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and 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 cillu
Legal Analysis
The court identified the requirement of closing before August 1 as a 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party to a contract cannot actively prevent the occurrence of