Share
Explore BrainMass

Case Study Analysis: Smithson v White

Read and understand the case. The case must have Analysis, Reasoning and the situation in the case must be summarized. The case must be presented with each of the following outline topics:
a. Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell something about them.]
b. Facts [Summarize those facts critical to the outcome of the case.]
c. Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
d. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns.]
e. Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
f. Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision.]
g. Case Questions [Be sure to address and thoroughly answer each and every case question and each part of each question.]
h. Conclusion [This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling.]
i. Include citations on the slides and a reference page with your sources. Use APA style citations and references.
This will be used for assistance only and not used as my own work.

Here is the case:

Thomas Smithson, a house builder and small-scale property developer, decided that a certain tract of undeveloped land in Franklin, Tennessee, would be extremely attractive for development into a subdivision. Smithson contacted the owner of the property, Monsanto Chemical Company, and was told that the company would sell the property at the "right price."

Smithson did not have the funds with which to embark unassisted in the endeavor, so he contacted Frank White, a co-owner of the Andrews Realty Company, and two agents of the firm Dennis Devrow and Temple Ennis. Smithson showed them a sketch map with the proposed layout of the lots, roads, and so forth. Smithson testified that they all orally agreed to develop the property together, and in lieu of a financial investment, Smithson would oversee the engineering of the property. Subsequently, H. R. Morgan was brought into the deal to provide additional financing.

Smithson later discovered that White had contacted Monsanto directly. When challenged about this, White assured Smithson that he was still "part of the deal" but refused to put the agreement in writing. White, Devrow, Ennis, and Morgan purchased the property from Monsanto. They then sold it to H.A.H. Associates, a corporation, for a $184,000 profit. When they refused to pay Smithson, he sued to recover an equal share of the profits. Was a partnership formed between Smithson and the defendants? Who wins? Smithson v. White, Web 1988 Tenn.App. Lexis 221 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee).

Solution Preview

Smithson v. White, Web 1988 Tenn.App. Lexis 221 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee).
a. Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell something about them.]
The plaintiff of the original case was Thomas Smithson and the plaintiffs for the secondary part were Frank White, Dennis Devrow, and Temple Ennis. Thomas Smithson was a developer who developed properties into subdivisions. Frank White, Devrow, and Ennis were attached to the Andrews Realty Company, to whom Smithson went for help in buying and developing property owned by Monsanto that was available. Smithson was involved in other subdivisions and did not have available cash to purchase the property.

The defendants on the case were White, Devrow, Ennis and a financial partner brought in to help with the money for the property and development, H.R. Morgan. Additionally, an entity that was also a defendant, H.A.H. Associates, a company that Morgan is VP of. This entity was used by the others to quit claim the property into another owner once the property had been secured. For the secondary case, Morgan was the defendant, as the one who indemnified any claims brought by Smithson against White, Devrow, and Ennis.

b. Facts [Summarize those facts critical to the outcome of the case.]

Smithson found a unique opportunity to buy property from Monsanto. He approached his brother in law, a partner in Andrews Realty ...

Solution Summary

This solution provides an overview and analysis of a case study.

$2.19