Connection lost
Server error
DRAKE v. HOSLEY Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A seller refused to pay a broker’s commission after a real estate deal failed. The court held the broker earned the commission because the seller, not the buyer, was responsible for preventing the sale’s closing by selling to another party.
Legal Significance: The case adopts the modern rule that a broker’s commission is contingent on the closing of the sale, but establishes that the commission is still due if the seller’s own default or frustrating conduct prevents the closing.
DRAKE v. HOSLEY Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Paul Drake (Seller) executed an exclusive listing agreement with Charles Hosley (Broker), promising a 10% commission if, among other things, the seller entered into a “binding sale.” Hosley procured buyers who signed a purchase agreement with Drake. The agreement stipulated that closing would occur “within 10 days of clear title.” Hosley received the title report on April 3, 1984, setting a closing deadline of April 13. Subsequently, Drake’s attorney demanded an earlier closing on April 11. The buyers were unable to meet this new, unilateral deadline. On April 12, before the contract’s 10-day period had expired, Drake sold the property to a different party through another broker. Later that same day, Hosley, on behalf of the original buyers, tendered checks for the down payment, which Drake’s attorney refused. Hosley sued for his commission, and the trial court granted him summary judgment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a real estate broker entitled to a commission when a sale fails to close because the seller sells the property to a third party before the original buyer’s contractual performance period has expired?
Yes. The broker is entitled to the commission. Although the court found Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a real estate broker entitled to a commission when a sale fails to close because the seller sells the property to a third party before the original buyer’s contractual performance period has expired?
Conclusion
This case establishes that in Alaska, a seller cannot escape liability for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Legal Rule
While a real estate broker's right to a commission is generally contingent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis
Legal Analysis
The court adopted the reasoning of *Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. Johnson*, which Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court adopted the Dobbs rule: a broker’s commission is earned