Detroit Lions and Billy Sims v. Jerry Argovitz case brief summary
580 F.Supp. 542 (1984)
CASE FACTS
An agent for a football player was in negotiations with a team for the services of his client. As negotiations progressed, the agent's bid for a franchise in an opposing league was approved and the agent became a part owner of another football team. The agent's team began negotiating for the services of the client and ultimately the client signed with the agent's team, having been led to believe that the original team seeking his services was not sincerely interested. Sometime thereafter, the client filed an action seeking to invalidate the contract with the agent's team arguing that the agent breached his fiduciary obligations to the client by not keeping the client informed of all of his options and failing to use the offer made by the agent's team to seek a better offer from the original team.
DISCUSSION
The court determined that the agent did in fact breach his duty to the client by failing to inform the client that the agent had an interest adverse to the client's and failed to negotiate with the original team in the client's best interest. The court determined that the conduct of the agent was so egregious that rescission was the only proper remedy.
CONCLUSION
The court rescinded the contract between the client and the agent's team.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
580 F.Supp. 542 (1984)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff client filed an action
against defendant agent and sought a judicial determination that a
contract negotiated by the agent was invalid. The action was
subsequently removed to the court.CASE FACTS
An agent for a football player was in negotiations with a team for the services of his client. As negotiations progressed, the agent's bid for a franchise in an opposing league was approved and the agent became a part owner of another football team. The agent's team began negotiating for the services of the client and ultimately the client signed with the agent's team, having been led to believe that the original team seeking his services was not sincerely interested. Sometime thereafter, the client filed an action seeking to invalidate the contract with the agent's team arguing that the agent breached his fiduciary obligations to the client by not keeping the client informed of all of his options and failing to use the offer made by the agent's team to seek a better offer from the original team.
DISCUSSION
The court determined that the agent did in fact breach his duty to the client by failing to inform the client that the agent had an interest adverse to the client's and failed to negotiate with the original team in the client's best interest. The court determined that the conduct of the agent was so egregious that rescission was the only proper remedy.
CONCLUSION
The court rescinded the contract between the client and the agent's team.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment