Share
Explore BrainMass

Preparing a brief

CASE 1-4 Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc.

I have these guide lines to follow, from my understanding the brief I am writing must include this outline which I need assistance on.

1.TRIBUNAL - I dont quite understand who is deciding this case.

2. Parties - The plaintiff and the defendant what are their roles in the case?

3. Issues - Note I cant figure out what the question or questions should be that the tribunal must answer in order to resolve the parties dispute?

4. Facts- I am suppose to tell the story of the parties and how they got into the legal dispute.

5. Rule - I am suppose to state the rule of law that the court applies to answer the question posed by the issue. I was told that we are suppose to use a rule of law maybe from a treaty, a statue, or a common-law court decisions.

6.Holding - I was told that I should state the tribunal's answer to the legal question posed by the issue. The statement of the holding should be a complete sentence that stands on its own.

7. Reasoning - Explaining the Court reasoning, this was stated to be my weakest area, I was told that I must break down the court logic into each step that the court took to answer the question. I was also told that this part must be reader friendly and to break it down using concise bullet points.

8. Judgment - I must describe what action the tribunal took as a result of the holding it reached on the issue put to it.

9. Observation - I was to suppose to reflect on what this case teaches you relevant to what business people need to know about the law, how it works and how it affects business strategy.

Of course, this is my first brief as well as this being business law. I am definitely not following this case. Please assist, Thanks

The website the case is on is: http://www.raymondaugust.com/pubs/ibl4/cases/Chapter01/Case01-4.htm

Solution Preview

1.TRIBUNAL - I dont quite understand who is deciding this case.
United States Couirt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
118 F.3d 76 These are the names of the Judges: ALTIMARI, McLAUGHLIN, and JACOBS, Circuit Judges
Decided June 27, 1997
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge

2. Parties - The plaintiff and the defendant what are their roles in the case?
MATIMAK TRADING CO.,
Plaintiff-Appellant ,
The role of the Plaintiff: Plaintiff appeals from an order entered August 19, 1996 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Wood, J. ) dismissing plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

- v. -
ALBERT KHALILY, d/b/a Unitex Mills, Inc.,
and D.A.Y. KIDS SPORTSWEAR INC.
Defendants-Appellees :
The role of the defendants is to aver that The District Court decision that the United States Courts had no jurisdiction, that is "lack of subject matter jurisdiction" is correct and so should be held true. And the petition should be dismissed.

3. Issues - Note I cant figure out what the question or questions should be that the tribunal must answer in order to resolve the parties dispute?
This portion has been taken from the background of the case: The issue that the circuit court must decide is whether the Matimak Trading Co. Ltd can sue Albert Khalily and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc in the US District Court. Please understand that the company that is suing is Matimak Trading Co. Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of Hong Kong, so in common language it is a citizen of Hong Kong and it wants to sue two companies that are "citizens" of the USA in the US District Court. The US District Court ruled that the Hong Kong company cannot sue. Then the Hong Kong Company appealed against the decision in the Circuit Court and this suit came up. Again the Circuit Court decided that the Hong Kong Company cannot sue the US company. This is being explained to help you understand the questions.
Plaintiff Matimak Trading Co. Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of Hong Kong, with its principal place of business in Hong Kong. It seeks to sue Albert Khalily and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc., two New York corporations, in the Southern District of New York (Wood, J.) for breach of contract. Matimak invoked the court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), which provides jurisdiction over any civil action arising between "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state."
In June 1996, the ...

$2.19