Connection lost
Server error
Trimmer v. Van Bomel 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: A man sued his wealthy former benefactress, claiming she orally promised to support his “sumptuous” lifestyle for life. The court dismissed the suit, finding the alleged express contract too vague to enforce and refusing to imply a contract for companionship services.
Legal Significance: Reinforces the contract law principle that an agreement must have definite material terms to be enforceable. Courts will not imply a contract to pay for services, such as companionship, that are typically rendered gratuitously out of friendship or affection.
Trimmer v. Van Bomel 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 Trimmer, a tour operator, alleged he gave up his business to become the full-time companion to the wealthy widow, defendant Van Bomel. For five years, she supported him lavishly, paying for his rent, travel, luxury goods, and providing a stipend, totaling over $300,000. The relationship was non-sexual. When the relationship ended, Trimmer sued for $1.5 million. He asserted two causes of action: one for breach of an express oral contract, alleging Van Bomel promised to establish a fund sufficient to maintain his “sumptuous living” for life, and a second in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of his services. In depositions, Trimmer admitted that no specific amount, timing, or method of payment for this alleged fund was ever discussed. He also acknowledged the defendant could terminate the relationship at any time.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an alleged oral agreement to provide for a companion’s “sumptuous living” for life, without any specific terms regarding the amount, timing, or method of payment, sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract?
No. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that 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 cillu
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 an alleged oral agreement to provide for a companion’s “sumptuous living” for life, without any specific terms regarding the amount, timing, or method of payment, sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong precedent that personal service and companionship 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 co
Legal Rule
For an express contract to be enforceable, its material terms must be 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 ips
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the plaintiff's two claims separately. First, it dismissed 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 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, consectetu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An alleged express oral contract is unenforceable if it is fatally