ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Law & Legal Issues

Case / Legal Brief for Mickens V. Pawn Shop ( Consuelo Mickens V. The Pawn Store )

Updated on July 16, 2012


This guide will teach you and show you the case / law brief for Mickens V. Pawn Shop.


Consuelo Mickens


The Pawn Store


This case deals with whether or not the Pawn store did a breach of contract.


In 2004, Consuelo Mickens entered the Pawn Shop, and pawned a ring. Jesse Colwell, went with the pawn ticket to reclaim the ring. The store owners allowed Jesse Colwell to receive the ring, even though his name was not on the ticket.

Prior Proceedings:

Consuelo Mickens is suing the Pawn store. Consuelo is suing on the basis that Jesse Consuelo retrieved a ring pawned at a pawn shop that was hers, without being on the pawn ticket. The district court went in the favor of the pawn shop on the basis that Mickens failed to prove breach of contract or conversion due to her implied consent to allow Colwell to reclaim items she had pawned at the store. She appealed on the breach of contract and conversion claims. The appeals court had found no error in the District Courts decision, therefore it was affirmed. Mickens then appealed to the Supreme Court.


Was there in fact a breach of contract by the Pawn Store in allowing Jesse Colwell to retrieve the ring?


There are a few things that lead to the decision of the rationale of the Supreme Court. First off, Jesse Colwell was the father of the three children and Consuelo Mickens was the mother. Although they aren’t married this leads to the next point where the Pawn Store saw the two of them together on more than one occasion. Also on more than one occasion Mickens had given permission to Colwell to retrieve items from the Pawn Store. Mickens said this was false, but testimony of store employees and records from the past prove this to be in fact true. Also after the ring was gotten by Colwell, Mickens did not alert the police of Colwell taking the ring, nor did she seek restitution from Colwell for the ring. Because all of the evidence goes to support that Mickens typically does, and including this case, gave, and gives permission to Jesse Colwell to retrieve items from the pawn shop. Therefore the Supreme court also finds no error in the District Courts findings of the Pawn Shop winning.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Johnrr631992 profile image

      John Reid-Roberts 5 years ago from Boston, Massachusetts

      Nope, just trying to keep the plagiarism down, Thanks for commenting.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Thank you so much for explaining. For some odd reason I was thinking along the lines of submitting moving or responding papers with copy and past concepts.

      No that you explained, I like it.

    • Johnrr631992 profile image

      John Reid-Roberts 5 years ago from Boston, Massachusetts

      Well, I had written these papers, and these are very common cases for students who study law. A lot of students will look these up for assistance when they are doing their homework, and I am disclaiming that if their teacher asks them to submit the document to which is the website every college has to submit to, then they will get a 100% plagiarism, and most likely fail the class, so i write this to try to help the students out, but at the same time I am trying to make sure they do not copy what I am saying and taking my credit as their own.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Please explain the intro disclaimer