Connection lost
Server error
Pappas v. Bever Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
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 college receiver sued to enforce a decedent’s pledge. The court found the pledge language “I intend to subscribe” expressed a non-binding intention, not an enforceable promise, especially without extrinsic evidence.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a mere expression of future intention, like “I intend,” without more, does not constitute a binding contractual promise, particularly when the instrument stands alone without clarifying extrinsic evidence.
Pappas v. Bever 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 William Pappas, receiver for Charles City College, sought to enforce a pledge made by Philip Bissonnette, Jr., against his estate. The pledge form, provided by the college, stated: “I/we intend to subscribe to the College Founder’s Fund the sum of Five Thousand —no/100 Dollars.” It further indicated, “I intend to pay [ ] Annually over 36 months beginning 1967.” Bissonnette signed the form and paid $2,000 in two installments (1967 and 1968) before the college closed in May 1968. He made no further payments prior to his death in May 1969. Crucially, no extrinsic evidence was presented to clarify the meaning of the pledge instrument or the parties’ intentions beyond the document itself. The trial court denied enforcement, holding the instrument alone was insufficient to demonstrate an obligatory pledge.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a pledge form stating “I intend to subscribe” and “I intend to pay,” without any extrinsic evidence clarifying the parties’ intent, create a legally enforceable contractual obligation?
No. The pledge form, standing alone, expresses a mere statement of future 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 aliq
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
Does a pledge form stating “I intend to subscribe” and “I intend to pay,” without any extrinsic evidence clarifying the parties’ intent, create a legally enforceable contractual obligation?
Conclusion
This case underscores that clear promissory language is essential for contract formation, 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
Legal Rule
When words expressing an intention to do something in the future stand 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
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished this case from *Pappas v. Hauser*, 197 N.W.2d 607 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 ad
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A pledge form stating “I/we intend to subscribe,” without supporting extrinsic