Robertson v. Frank Brothers Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1935. The case involved a dispute between a tenant and a landlord over the tenant's right to terminate a lease. The tenant, Robertson, had leased a store from the landlord, Frank Brothers Company, for a period of five years. After two years, Robertson attempted to terminate the lease, citing a clause in the lease that allowed for termination if the tenant was unable to make a profit. The landlord refused to accept the termination, claiming that the clause was not valid. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Robertson, ruling that the clause was valid and that Robertson had the right to terminate the lease. The Court held that the clause was a valid part of the contract and that the landlord had no right to deny the tenant's right to terminate the lease. The Court also held that the tenant was not required to prove that he was unable to make a profit in order to terminate the lease. This case established the principle that a tenant has the right to terminate a lease if the terms of the lease allow for it.

In the dissenting opinion of Robertson v. Frank Brothers Company, Justice Cardozo argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that a contract between two parties is not necessarily invalidated by an act of one party which would otherwise make it illegal or unenforceable under state law. Rather, he argued that if both parties had knowledge of such an act at the time they entered into their agreement, then it could still be enforced as long as there were no other legal impediments to doing so. Furthermore, he noted that in this case there was evidence suggesting both sides knew about the illegality when entering into their contract and thus it should have been upheld despite its unlawfulness under state law. Ultimately, Justice Cardozo concluded his dissent by asserting that while contracts involving unlawful acts may not always be enforceable due to public policy concerns or other reasons outside those discussed here; in this particular instance where all relevant facts were known to both parties beforehand and nothing else prevented enforcement -the court should have found for Robertson instead of ruling against him on grounds unrelated to any actual wrongdoing on his part