Connection lost
Server error
Donovan v. RRL Corp. 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 car dealer’s newspaper ad mistakenly listed a Jaguar for $12,000 below its intended price. The court found that while the ad created a binding contract when a customer tried to buy it, the dealer could rescind the contract due to the good-faith unilateral mistake.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a specific advertisement can be a binding offer, particularly when regulated by statute. It also adopts the modern rule allowing rescission for unilateral mistake where enforcement would be unconscionable, even if the non-mistaken party was unaware of the error.
Donovan v. RRL Corp. 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
Defendant RRL Corp., an automobile dealer, authorized a newspaper advertisement for a used 1995 Jaguar XJ6. Due to a typographical error made by the newspaper, the advertisement listed the price as $25,995, which was $12,000 less than the dealer’s intended price of $37,995. The dealer’s actual cost for the vehicle was $35,000. Plaintiff Brian Donovan saw the advertisement, visited the dealership, and, after confirming the vehicle’s details matched the ad, attempted to purchase it by tendering the advertised price. The dealership’s salesperson and manager immediately informed Donovan that the price was a mistake and refused to sell the car for $25,995. The evidence established that the error was a good-faith mistake by the newspaper, and the dealer was unaware of it until Donovan’s attempt to purchase. A California statute, Vehicle Code § 11713.1(e), makes it unlawful for a dealer to fail to sell a vehicle at its advertised price. Donovan sued for breach of contract.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a contract for the sale of a vehicle be rescinded on the basis of a unilateral mistake of fact when a dealer’s advertisement contains a good-faith typographical error regarding the price and enforcement would be unconscionable?
Yes. Although a binding contract was formed, the defendant is entitled 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 irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e
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
May a contract for the sale of a vehicle be rescinded on the basis of a unilateral mistake of fact when a dealer’s advertisement contains a good-faith typographical error regarding the price and enforcement would be unconscionable?
Conclusion
This case provides a key precedent for analyzing advertisements as offers 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 ullam
Legal Rule
A contract may be rescinded based on a unilateral mistake of fact 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. Except
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that a contract was formed. Departing from 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 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 e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An automobile dealer’s advertisement for a specific vehicle at a stated