THE LEISURE GROUP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
EDWIN F. ARMSTRONG & COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court correctly applied Arkansas law to determine the validity of the oral brokerage contract.
Appellant entered into an oral brokerage contract with appellee for a fee to find a lender. Appellee found a lender, but appellant refused the loan. A…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Brokerage Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Judge Oren Harris presiding.
There is no dispute as to the circumstances out of which this lawsuit arose. The appellant, The Leisure Group, Inc. (formerly Ben Pearson, Inc.), entered into an oral brokerage contract with the appellee, Edwin F. Armstrong & Company, Inc. By the terms of the oral agreement, the appellant was to pay the appellee a fee for finding a lender who would make a loan on terms satisfactory to the appellant. Although the appellee secured such a lender for the appellant, the appellant refused to consummate the loan agreement because it had entered into negotiations with another lender.' The appellee thereupon instituted this suit to recover the broker’s commission. A judgment in the sum of $15,000 was entered.
The only issue raised upon this appeal is whether Judge Harris' decision, that Arkansas and not New York law was to be applied in determining the validity of the oral contract, was erroneous. After reviewing the record and studying the briefs submitted and the cases cited therein, we are of the opinion that Judge Harris correctly decided the issue.
We, therefore, adopt his opinion published in Edwin F. Armstrong & Co. v. Ben Pearson, Inc., D.C., 294 F.Supp. 163 as the opinion of this Court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v. LA Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1982)
-
Owens v. SUN OIL Co., 482 F.2d 564 (10th Cir. 1973)