Case Citation
Legal Case Name

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP v. SCHNEIDER Case Brief

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit2010
607 F.3d 322 Agency and Partnership Contracts Business Associations

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
4 min read

tl;dr: An agent’s ambiguous statement suggesting a deal was finalized did not bind his principals because the third party, based on prior dealings, could not have reasonably believed the agent had authority after he had explicitly stated he lacked it just minutes earlier.

Legal Significance: An agent’s ambiguous statements cannot create apparent authority when a third party knows, or should know from the undisputed context of prior dealings, of the agent’s limited authority. The reasonableness of a third party’s belief is evaluated based on all surrounding circumstances.

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP v. SCHNEIDER 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

The Schneiders (principals) engaged Glen Rauch of GRS (agent) to assist in selling promissory notes. A letter agreement with the potential buyer, RBC, stipulated that consummation of any transaction remained in the “sole discretion” of the Schneiders. Throughout negotiations, Rauch consistently reiterated to RBC that he required the Schneiders’ specific authorization for any firm offer. On March 14, after the Schneiders had privately learned information that significantly increased the notes’ value, Rauch told RBC in two recorded calls that he lacked authority to finalize a sale at the proposed price of 51% of face value and was waiting to hear from the Schneiders’ attorney. Ten minutes after the second call, in an unrecorded conversation initiated by RBC, an RBC employee testified that Rauch “confirmed size and price” and said he would “get the lawyers to send us a confirm.” RBC and a third-party beneficiary, Highland Capital, claimed this created a binding contract. The Schneiders denied authorizing the sale. A jury found for the plaintiffs, and the district court denied the Schneiders’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did an agent possess actual or apparent authority to bind his principals to a contract when his ambiguous statements suggesting a deal were made minutes after he explicitly informed the third party that he lacked such authority and was awaiting the principals’ approval?

No. The agent lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind 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 es

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

Did an agent possess actual or apparent authority to bind his principals to a contract when his ambiguous statements suggesting a deal were made minutes after he explicitly informed the third party that he lacked such authority and was awaiting the principals’ approval?

Conclusion

This case establishes that the reasonableness of a third party's belief in 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 a

Legal Rule

An agent binds a principal only if the agent has actual or 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 culp

Legal Analysis

The Second Circuit reversed the denial of JMOL, concluding that no reasonable 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 v

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An agent lacks actual or apparent authority when the principal explicitly
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 cul

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?

It's every lawyer's dream to help shape the law, not just react to it.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+