Analysis of Dennis Ranzau vs. William Brosseau using the IRAC Format – Essay Example

The paper "Analysis of Dennis Ranzau vs. William Brosseau using the IRAC Format" is an outstanding example of a law essay.
Dennis Ranzau vs. William Brosseau had a partner to buy a house, Casa T, which was located in Acapulco. Their main intention was to use the house as a home during their vacation for a few weeks after that leasing it and share the income. In the year 1991, Ranzu sued Brosseau for breach of the partnership agreement and breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, he also requested a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction issued. He also requested the court for accounting about the partnership property alleged.
Rule
The case was heard by the bench trial, the court agreed on entering in an interlocutory judgment for Ranzau, and Brosseau was ordered to pay a number of actual damages and some for exemplary damages. The judgment also found out that there existed a partnership between Brosseau and Ranzau, and on the day the suit was filed by Ranzau against Brosseau, they both owned the house as tenants in partnership.
Analysis
Brosseau argues that the summary of the judgment was inappropriate since there was a fact issue on the question of issue preclusion and asks if the summary judgment can be reversed from the opinion that Ranzau owns the property. He also claims Ranzau is a witness who has his interest and questions without identifying any single evidence, the authentication of the documents used in supporting the judgment. His argument is Ranzau had no proof that he had breached their contract.
On the other hand, Ranzau’s first pleading arguments concerning the claim are seen to be vague. He asserts the material was mispresented in the creation of a partnership between them. He alleged his partner (Brosseau) had promised him to create a written agreement indicating partnership, which he did not make as promised.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ranzau had claimed for breach of contract and the court affirmed a partnership between the two. While the court had gathered enough details to the proof existence and breach of contract, it did not have sufficient evidence to support the legal intent of a fraud claim.