Connection lost
Server error
Herbert J. Roberts v. Norman M. Ross, Jr 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 foreman sued a home builder over an alleged oral promise for a sales commission. The appellate court held that the Statute of Frauds for land sales does not apply to personal service contracts for brokerage and remanded the case due to procedurally deficient fact-finding by the trial court.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a general Statute of Frauds governing interests in land does not apply to oral contracts for brokerage commissions. The case is also significant for its strong condemnation of the trial court practice of adopting post-decision findings of fact prepared by prevailing counsel.
Herbert J. Roberts v. Norman M. Ross, Jr 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
Plaintiff Herbert J. Roberts, a construction foreman, worked for defendant Norman M. Ross, Jr., a home builder. Roberts alleged that Ross orally promised him a 5% commission on the sale price of a house if Roberts procured a buyer. Roberts introduced James Soutter to Ross as a prospective purchaser. Soutter and Ross subsequently negotiated and completed the sale for $61,750. Ross denied making any promise of a commission, claiming he reduced the sale price from the initial $65,000 because no broker’s commission was involved. When Ross refused to pay, Roberts sued to recover the commission. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found for the defendant. After announcing its decision, the judge directed defendant’s counsel to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the court then adopted verbatim. These conclusions stated that Roberts failed to prove the sale was procured through his “agency” and that, in any event, the alleged oral promise was barred by the Statute of Frauds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a statute of frauds requiring that contracts for the sale of an interest in land be in writing also bar an action to enforce an oral agreement to pay a commission for procuring a buyer for that land?
No. The court held that the Virgin Islands Statute of Frauds does 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 vo
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
Does a statute of frauds requiring that contracts for the sale of an interest in land be in writing also bar an action to enforce an oral agreement to pay a commission for procuring a buyer for that land?
Conclusion
This case clarifies that oral brokerage commission contracts are enforceable under a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven
Legal Rule
A statute of frauds that applies to the creation or transfer of 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 reprehen
Legal Analysis
The Third Circuit determined that the trial court erred in applying the 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 qui officia deserunt mollit
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An oral agreement for a real estate commission is a contract