Agent Cases Flashcards
Detroit Lions and Billy Sims v. Argovitz Where Facts Issue Rule
Where: -Michigan Facts: -plaintiff's agent and also the defendant, acted out of interest and breached his fiduciary duty owed to plaintiff when negotiating between lions and gamblers Issue: -whether defendant breached fiduciary duty owed to plaintiff Rule: -fiduciary duty
Detroit Lions & Billy Sims v. Argovitz
Reason
Holding
Reason:
-defendant obtained ownership of gamblers at which point, he essentially dropped negotiations w/ lions and began dealings w/ gamblers, a conflict of interest
-defendant planned to profit off plaintiff’s contract and altho he asked plaintiff if he wanted to call lions, bc of plaintiffs emotional state, he declined and accepted the gamblers contract, @ which pt. defendant breached fiduciary duty
-when defendant declined lions’ phone call, he breached fiduciary duty
-defendant later tried to have plaintiff sign a waiver against any claims of breach
-took % of plaintiff’s loan
-defendant tried to negotiate a better contract with gamblers
-if violate #1 in conclusions of law, fraud is presumed; principal can get out, but agent is protected w/ full-disclosure
-must sign full-disclosure doc (not verbal)
Holding:
-plaintiff rescinds contract w/ gamblers
Brown v. Woolf
Where
Facts
Where:
-Indianna
Facts:
-plaintiff engages defendant’s services to negotiate a contract w/ NHL for him
-plaintiff received offer from penguins, but defendant asserted plaintiff could get a better deal w/ new team, racers
-plaintiff signed 5 yr contract w/ racers, but team went bankrupt and defaulted on plaintiff’s obligations
-plaintiff received partial salaary while agent received full fee
-plaintiff asserts defendant breached fiduciary duties and raises claims of constructive fraud for which plaintiff wants compensatory and punitive damages
-defendant files for partial summary judgement for punitive damages claim
-defendant motions for summary judgement on constructive fraud claim
Brown v. Woolf
Issue
Rule
Issue:
-whether motions for partial and summary judgement are applicable
Rule:
-indianna cases; Rule 56 (e) F.R.C.
Brown v. Woolf
Reason
- Punitive Damages:
- courts found no indianna law discussing avail. of punitive damages
- but would allow it, on a case by case basis with elements of recklessness, or oppressive conduct demonstrated
- Constructive Fraud:
- where an unconscionable advt is or may be derived, or breach of confidence, or breach of duty
- Rule 56 (e) F.C.R.:
- adverse party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial
- if he does not so respond, summary judgement, if approp, shall be entered against him
Brown v. Woolf
Holding
Punitive Damages
Compensatory Damages
- defendant’s motions for summary and partial judgement are DENIED
- court says bc jury can side w/ either agent or player, it cannot grant summary judgement, and case must go to trial
Punitive Damages: want punishment for party
Compensatory Damages: want compensation
Bias v. Advtg Internat’l, Inc.
Background
2 Issues
Background:
-April 7, 1986: plaintiff entered into rep agreement w/ defendant
-June 17, 1986: plaintiff drafted by celtics
-June 18, 1986: died of cocaine OD
-plaintiff sued for 2 sep. injuries, arising from rep. agreement
Issues:
1. plaintiff directed defendant to get a life ins policy, that defendant rep he secured such policy, and bc of it, plaintiff did not independently seek to buy life ins
2. negotiating endorsement contract w/ reebok
-defendant asked plaintiff to leave and began negotiating on behalf of other players
-defendant breached duty by negotiating with other players and bc of this, when plaintiff died, he had no contract with reebok
-plaintiff alleges contract would have provided an unconditional lump sum payment, which plaintiff would have received up front
Bias v. Advtg Internat’l, Inc.
D.C.’s holding
1st claim
2nd claim
-D.C. granted defendant summary judgement on both claims
1st Claim:
- D.C. held plaintiff didnt suffer any damage from defendant’s failure to obtain life ins policy
- no insurer would issue a “jumbo” policy to cocaine user uncless applicant made misrep regarding drug use, which would render ins policy void
2nd claim:
- defendant had no independent reason to expedite signing of endorsement contract
- defendant couldnt have obtained a signed contract before plaintiff’s death even if defendant tried to do so
Bias v. Advtg Internat’l, Inc.
Availability of Jumbo Policy in Light of Prior Drug Use
- expert testimony: no insurer would issue a jumbo policy w/o inquiring about applicant’s prior drug use
- affirmative answer would render applicant uninsurable
- bc plaintiff failed to provide evidence that a single company would issue a jumbo policy w/o inquiring about the applicant’s drug use, claim dismissed
Walters v. Fullwood
- defendant entered into a postdated rep agreement with plaintiff, relinquishing plaintiff’s amateur status
- plaintiff paid $4k to defendant, who then executed a promissory note in plaintiff’s favor for that amt
- thruout ‘86 season, plaintiff sent defendant payments totaling $4,083
- prior to ‘87 draft, defendant repudiated agreement with plaintiff and chose diff agent
- defendant selected by packers
- plaintiff allege (1) breached agreement, and (2) repayment of funds owed ($8k)
- NCAA constitution prohibits players from accepting pay in any form for part. in college sport
- court concludes agreement violates sections 3-1-(a) and 3-1-(c) of NCAA constitution
- cant sign with agent while playing
- agreement is ruled unenforceable bc it is contrary to public policy
US v. Walters
- defendant did same thing w/ Fullwood case w/ 58 other players
- 56 left agreement and kept money and cars
- walters couldnt sue bc of fullwood case, so he threatened to kill them and break their legs before the draft
- pleads to mail fraud
- schools were paying scholarships to ineligible players
- defendant engaged in mail fraud
- court holds defendant’s scheme did not involve mail fraud
