Connection lost
Server error
McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC 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: Landowners with a “most-favored-nation” clause in their land sale options sued when a nearby parcel, acquired for the same industrial project through a third party, received a higher price. The court found the clause ambiguous, creating a jury question against the option holder.
Legal Significance: A contract’s most-favored-nation clause may be triggered by a higher price paid by a third party for property “included in the project,” if the contractual language is ambiguous as to the payor and the project’s scope.
McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC 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
To create an incentive package for Hyundai, the Industrial Development Board of Montgomery (IDB) entered into option agreements to purchase land from several landowners, including the plaintiffs. The agreements contained a most-favored-nation (MFN) clause, providing that the purchase price would be no less than that “paid to any other landowner included in the project.” After the initial options were secured, Hyundai required additional land for rail access (the Shelton property). To avoid triggering the MFN clauses, state and local officials arranged for a third party (initially CSX, then Hyundai, funded by the State) to purchase the Shelton property for $12,000 per acre, significantly more than the $4,500 per acre paid to the plaintiffs. The final project agreement, surveys, and tax abatement agreements all treated the Shelton property as part of the overall development. The plaintiffs sued the IDB for breach of contract and Hyundai under agency and joint venture theories. One plaintiff group, the Russells, had also signed an amendment setting their price at a fixed $4,500 per acre.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a most-favored-nation clause in a land purchase option agreement, which guarantees a price no less than that “paid to any other landowner included in the project,” ambiguous and potentially breached when a third party pays a higher price for a nearby parcel essential to the same project?
Yes. The summary judgment for the IDB is reversed. The MFN clause 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. Excepte
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 most-favored-nation clause in a land purchase option agreement, which guarantees a price no less than that “paid to any other landowner included in the project,” ambiguous and potentially breached when a third party pays a higher price for a nearby parcel essential to the same project?
Conclusion
This case illustrates that ambiguity in key contractual terms, such as 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 oc
Legal Rule
When the terms of a contract are ambiguous, such that reasonable persons 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
Legal Analysis
The court determined the MFN clause was ambiguous on two fronts. First, 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Hyundai Not Liable: Summary judgment for Hyundai was affirmed, as there
