Connection lost
Server error
Locks v. Wade 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: Lessor of a juke box sued lessee for breach. Court held lessor, having an essentially unlimited supply of juke boxes, could recover lost profits without deducting earnings from re-leasing the specific unit, as they could have made both sales.
Legal Significance: Establishes the ‘lost volume lessor’ principle: a lessor with a practically unlimited supply of goods can recover lost profits from a breached lease without mitigating by re-leasing, as the breach does not enable the subsequent lease.
Locks v. Wade 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
Plaintiff (Locks) entered into a contract to lease an automatic phonograph (juke box) to defendant (Wade) for two years. Locks was to supply records and replace worn parts. Revenue was to be shared, with Locks guaranteed a minimum of $20 per week. Wade repudiated the contract before Locks installed the machine. Locks sued for breach, seeking damages based on the guaranteed minimum less his costs of performance and depreciation. Locks testified that the juke boxes were ‘readily available in the market,’ implying he could have supplied multiple customers simultaneously, but ‘locations were very hard to get.’ Although the component parts of the specific machine intended for Wade were later rented to others, Locks argued he lost the volume of one entire lease due to Wade’s breach. The trial court awarded Locks $836, representing his lost profit on the Wade contract.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a lessor who has a practically unlimited supply of the leased goods entitled to recover the full profit lost from a breached lease agreement, without deducting amounts realized from subsequently leasing the same or similar goods to another party?
Yes, the judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. The court held 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 nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
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 lessor who has a practically unlimited supply of the leased goods entitled to recover the full profit lost from a breached lease agreement, without deducting amounts realized from subsequently leasing the same or similar goods to another party?
Conclusion
This case is significant for its clear application of the 'lost volume' 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 ul
Legal Rule
Where a lessor has a supply of goods that is, for practical 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. Ex
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished the lease of a juke box, an item with 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 am
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A lessor with a practically unlimited supply of goods (a “lost
