Outward words over secret intent. LS311's second-unit case brief sets out Lucy v. Zehmer under seven labeled headings, with the holding stated in a single sentence. Searches like "ls 311 unit 2 assignment example", "ls311 unit 2 sample" and "ls311 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished LS311 Unit 2 case brief looks like
A page to a page and a half under bold labels, the format most business law texts model. The caption gives the case name, the court and the year. Facts are limited to what the court relied on: an evening of drinks at a restaurant the seller owned, a sale agreement written and then rewritten on a guest check so the seller's wife could sign it, a conversation long enough to resemble a negotiation, and the seller's later claim that the whole thing was a jest. Procedural history takes one sentence: the trial court ruled for the sellers, and the buyers appealed. The issue asks whether a secret intention to joke prevents a contract. The holding answers no, and the reasoning paragraph explains the reasonable-person standard the court applied to outward words and conduct.
How a LS311 Unit 2 example is structured
Each heading answers one question and stops. Facts come first but are pruned to the ones that carry the result, since a full retelling buries the three details the court actually weighed: the rewriting, the length of the discussion and the seller's ability to understand what he signed. The issue is framed narrowly enough to have a yes or no answer. Holding and rule are kept apart. The rule is the general principle, that assent is judged by outward expression as a reasonable person would read it; the holding is what that principle meant for these parties, a binding contract and an order to convey the farm. Reasoning follows in the writer's own words, with one short quotation at most. A closing comment, clearly labeled as the student's view, notes where the objective theory tends to return later in the course.
Caption and court
Case name, Virginia's highest court and the 1954 decision date, set on one line before anything else appears.
Facts that carried the result
The restaurant, the guest check, the rewritten agreement bearing a second signature, and the seller's claim of a jest, with everything decorative removed.
One issue, one holding
Whether an undisclosed intention to joke defeats a contract, answered in a single sentence that names the parties and the outcome.
Rule and reasoning kept apart
The objective standard stated as a general principle, then the court's reasons for applying it to this evening, paraphrased rather than quoted at length.
Comment, labeled as such
A short student observation on how the objective theory reappears when later units test offer and acceptance, marked off from the court's own words.
Where marks go in LS311 Unit 2
The costliest error in a Unit 2 brief is a holding that reports only who won, since the result means nothing without the legal reason behind it. A close second is a holding pitched so broadly that it becomes a statement about all contracts, which is the rule wearing the wrong label. Graders also mark down facts sections that retell the whole evening, because selecting the facts the court relied on is part of the skill being assessed. The intoxication finding is often overstated: the court addressed whether the seller understood what he signed, not whether he had been drinking. Procedural history gets confused when writers forget that the buyers lost at trial. Reasoning pasted in as long quotations shows reading rather than understanding.
Get a LS311 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the case assigned for Unit 2 and attach the brief template your instructor uses, if there is one, with the rubric. A seven-part brief built on that decision returns in 24-48h, holding and rule labeled separately. There is no fee for the first sample. It is an academic exercise on a published opinion and gives no legal advice.
LS311 Unit 2 questions, answered
What if my section assigns a different case?
Then the headings stay and the content changes. The example uses Lucy v. Zehmer because it is common in business law readings and its holding is clean, but the same seven parts carry any appellate decision. Send the case your instructor named, and the brief will be built on what that court decided, not on this one.
How long should the holding be?
Usually one sentence, occasionally two. The example's holding names the parties, answers the issue and gives the legal reason in about thirty words. If a holding needs a paragraph, it has probably absorbed the reasoning, which has its own heading. Graders often read the issue and holding together first, so the pair should make sense without anything else.
Is quoting the opinion acceptable in a case brief?
In small amounts. The example uses one short quotation where the court's own phrasing of the objective standard is worth preserving, and paraphrases everything else. Long quotations suggest the writer could not restate the reasoning, which is what a brief is meant to show. Page references for any quotation are expected in most sections.