Connection lost
Server error
Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co. 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: An architect quit a project and refused to finish his work unless paid more. The court held the owner’s promise of extra pay was unenforceable because the architect was already contractually obligated to perform the work.
Legal Significance: This case is a foundational example of the pre-existing duty rule, holding that a promise to pay more for performance that a party is already contractually obligated to render is unenforceable for lack of consideration.
Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co. 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
Edmund Jungenfeld, an architect, entered into a contract with Wainwright Brewing Co. to design plans and supervise the construction of a new brewery. His compensation was to be a five percent commission on the total cost of the buildings. The contract did not include work on the refrigerator plant to be installed within the brewery. The defendant awarded the contract for the refrigerator plant to a competitor of a company in which Jungenfeld was president. In response, Jungenfeld ceased all work, removed his plans, and abandoned the project, in breach of his contract. The defendant was in great haste to complete the brewery and would have suffered significant financial loss from the delay of finding a new architect. Under these circumstances, the defendant promised to pay Jungenfeld an additional five percent commission on the cost of the refrigerator plant if he would resume his duties. Jungenfeld agreed, completed his original supervisory work, and his estate later sued to enforce the promise for the additional commission.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a party’s promise to pay additional compensation for services that the other party is already contractually obligated to perform supported by sufficient consideration?
No, the promise to pay the additional commission is unenforceable. The court 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
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
Is a party’s promise to pay additional compensation for services that the other party is already contractually obligated to perform supported by sufficient consideration?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the traditional common law pre-existing duty rule, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua
Legal Rule
A promise to pay a party for doing that which they are Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna al
Legal Analysis
The court's reasoning is grounded in the pre-existing duty rule, a core 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A promise to pay a party more money to perform a