Buying a Sports Ticket - Are you accepting a contract?

Back of  Boston Red Sox Ticket

In today's blog I will be analyzing a little more of a unknown or uncommon way of accepting a contract. Buying a sports ticket or any event ticket that looks similar to the picture above is just one of many ways of accepting a contract. 

A brief overview of what it takes to enter into contractual relations:
1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration
4. Intention to enter into legal relations

If all 4 of these conditions are satisfied than both parties have subsequently agreed to enter into a contract. Just to break down buying a ticket: An organization offers to sell a seat in their stadium through a ticket. The customer accepts this offer and their consideration would be the dollar amount of the ticket. The intention is the consumer buying the ticket and the organization's willingness to sell the ticket. Buying a sports ticket is 100% a contract. But what have you actually agreed to when buying these tickets?

It is something that people rarely ever turn around and read, but if one were to take a closer look you may see something similar to this: 

By use of this ticket, the ticket purchaser/holder ("Holder") agrees that: (a) he    or she shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any information about the game to which it grants admission, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the game (collectively "Game Information"); and the Allstate Sugar Bowl and each of its respective agents, shall have the unrestricted right and license to use his or her image, likeness, name, voice, comments or other proprietary or public rights and that of any minor accompanying ticket holder in any broadcast, telecast or photograph and/or video and/or audio sound recording taken in connection with the game or other transmission or reproduction in whole or in part of the game, for all purposes, without compensation. 

The holder voluntarily assumes all risks incident to the event, including the risk of lost, stolen or damaged property or personal injury. The Allstate Sugar Bowl may revoke this license and eject or refuse entry to the holder for violation of venue rules, illegal activity, misconduct or failure to comply with any and all security measures.  Gym bags, backpacks, oversized packages, cans, bottles, weapons, missiles, fireworks, contraband, video cameras, cameras with a detachable zoom lens, recording devices, laser pointers, artificial noisemakers and containers of any kind are prohibited on Superdome property. 

The holder voluntarily assumes all risk associated with the purchase of this ticket from anyone other than the Allstate Sugar Bowl or its designated agents. This ticket may not be used for advertising, promotion (including contests or sweepstakes), or other trade or commercial purposes without the express written consent of the Allstate Sugar Bowl.

NO REFUNDS, NO EXCHANGES, NO RE-ADMISSION.  EVENT, DATE & TIME SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

After reading the fine print you realize that you have accepted some very onerous terms. You have given up your image rights, your ability to take photos or film, accepted all risk that occurs within the game  and allowed "Allstate Sugar Bowl" to revoke or refuse your entry into the game. 

The Back of the Tickets are 100% contracts and should be read in full to fully understand what you are accepting when you think you are just going to watch a game. 

Thanks, 

G.M. 



Retrieved from: http://www.allstatesugarbowl.org/site191.php

Lance Armstrong - Morality Clauses

Live strong foundation - Formally endorsed by cyclist Lance Armstrong

In this posting I will be looking into the ever more prevalent clause seen in professional sport, the morality clause. I will give a synopsis of what the clause entails and then go into the relevant case of Lance Armstrong and how they are related. 

What is a Morality Clause?

Essentially, in layman terms, it is a clause in a contract that controls ones behaviours. 

In Legalese: Contractual clause prohibiting a party's immoral, illegal or otherwise disparaging behaviour.

Why are they prevalent in the Sporting Industry?

Athletes are in spotlight almost 24/7. From the time they wake up to go to practice or play a game to their after parties or group gatherings at local restaurants. People recognize athletes much easier now because of social media and technological advances making them much bigger public figures than they ever have been before. Morality clauses are simple clauses that are placed in contracts to allow organizations to save their reputations if the athlete they are associated with does something that is deemed illegal, immoral or scandalous. 

Organizations/sponsors place a lot of advertising and sponsorship dollars into high profile athletes to enhance their brands. They use top athletes such as Lebron James to endorse Nike, so that when people think Lebron James they immediately associate Nike as being a top brand and want to purchase from them. If the general public has a different opinion on a top athlete, say Lebron James says something immoral on live television or through social media, than these companies that are endorsing these athletes want a way to terminate their contracts and no longer be associated. Morality clauses are one of the best ways to rectify this issue. 

A perfect example is the Lance Armstrong case with Nike and Livestrong. Lance Armstrong, was one of the best cyclists in the world winning 5 tour de France championships after returning from cancer treatments. Armstrong was heavily associated with Nike and cancer research foundation Livestrong. They endorsed Lance Armstrong  and advertised him as one of their athletes. Lance Armstrong would later admit on an airing of Oprah Winfrey that he was essentially a cheat and had been doping. All of his medals were stripped from him and he was no longer seen as this great athlete. Nike used their morality clause in the contract they had with Lance Armstrong to essentially cut ties and relations with him. This is an example of the Morality clause coming into play to disassociate with someone who they had contractual relations with.

Thanks,

Gavin

Force Majeure

Hurricane Katrina

In this weeks post I will delve into the topic of "Force Majeure" and how this can affect contracts within a sporting context. 

First I will define Force Majeure, and then show how it is applicable and through examples, show how it has been applied previously.

Force Majeure as defined by Fitzgerald and Olivo (2000)is:

• " A major event that the parties to a contract did not foresee or anticipate that prevents performance of the contract and thus terminates the contract; such an event - for example, a natural disaster or war - is outside the control of the parties and cannot be avoided with due diligence."
• Force Majeure is directly translated as: Superior Force, or an Act of God

Essentially Force Majeure is an 'impossibility' that has arisen that stops a party from performing their consideration of the contract.

When can Force Majeure be applied in sport?

When a situation that arises is out of the control of either party than the contract may not be completed. This situation may arise if there is a natural disaster, such as: a hurricane, a war, a flood, a terrorist attack or anything that is completely out of the two partie's control. 

A perfect example that has happened just last week was the terrorist attack that occurred in France. The act of a third party caused an impossibility for teams to perform their contractual duties. 

Another example would be when Hurricane Katrine devastated New Orleans, causing the New Orleans Saints of the NFL to relocate and play in four home games at LSU, three at the Alamodome in San Antonio and one in the Giants stadium in New jersey. This would contractually have broken any sponsorship or partnership agreement that the Saints, where the sponsors or partners signed deals with intentions of having their image shown in New Orlean's home stadium. It was through no fault of either party that the Saints had to relocate and that is where application of Force Majeure plays such an important role. 

Force Majeure is an important clause to include in all sporting contracts because simply, things happen. This is just one way to rectify the issue of having no control of our outer world.

Thanks,

G.M.

Fitzgerald, J., & Olivo, L. (2000). Fundamentals of contract law. Toronto, Canada: Emond Montgomery Publications.

Contracts and Minors - Can they sign?

Toronto Marlboro Junior A. Hockey Club Logo

Today we will be looking at whether or not minors have the legal right to sign a contract, and if so is it enforceable by law?

To start off simply before getting more in depth the basic answer to the questions above is; yes a minor can sign a contract and no it is not enforceable by law. These are two broad principles that I will be delving into and breaking down in more of a sporting context.

Linking to my above statement that minors can sign contracts; This means that yes minors who are in participating in sport whether it be junior hockey players, phenom gymnasts, potential olympic divers or any sport that young athletes can strive in are technically allowed to sign into contracts. You're probably wondering than if all of these young athletes are allowed to sign contracts than why above did you say that no they are not enforceable by law? Well, first of all they are "generally" unenforceable by law and secondly they are generally unenforceable because of provisions that have been adopted by common law to protect minors from making onerous and  naive decisions (Fitzgerald & Oliver, 2000). 

Yes, it is true that minors can sign the dotted line but in most cases, especially in sport, these contracts will not hold up in a court of law. The provisions that protect minors from these contracts are simply as follows:

1. Contract's signed by minors are not enforceable unless they are for the necessities of life.
2. Contract's can be repudiated by minors making them either Void ab initio or a Voidable contract.

Defining the legal terms above:

• Repudiate: to renounce or reject an obligation. 
• Void ab initio: Invalid from the beginning; no rights can arise under a contract that is void ab initio
• Voidable Contract: A contract that may be avoided or declared void at the option of one party to the contract; once it is declared invalid no further rights can be obtained under it, but the benefits obtained before the declaration are not forfeit.

What this all essentially means is that minor's (young athletes) can repudiate their contracts with sport organizations, hockey clubs etc. and the party that they have signed with cannot enforce said contract. This is because most contracts that these young athletes are signing are not for the necessities of their life. They may have some general terms that are beneficial to the athlete but the essence and general purpose of the contracts do not comply with the provision of necessity of life. 

A great example of a minor being able to repudiate his contract was the case of The Toronto Marlboro Major Junior A Hockey Club v. Tonelli. 

This case is a perfect example because it looks at the contract signed between a minor (Tonelli) and a Major Junior hockey club and shows how although the contract did have some beneficial terms in the contract its overall purpose and essence was overly onerous and not necessity to Tonelli's life. To break the case down as simple as possible I will use bullet points and then explain the court's findings.

• Tonelli was a minor, and a very talented hockey player (high potential to play professional hockey). 
• He signed a contract with the Toronto Major Junior A hockey club
• The contract he signed seems very beneficial, offering new equipment, paying for travel expenses and even offering meals on road games.
• There was also a clause in the contract that if Tonelli were to turn pro he would have to give 20% of his gross contract to the Toronto Major Junior Hockey Club
• Tonelli, turns pro receiving a large sum of money to play(total of 320,000 over 3 seasons)
• The Toronto Marlboro Major Junior A Hockey Club demanded that Tonelli pay 20% of his newly signed pro contract.

What the court decided was basically that this contract, which was signed when Tonneli was a minor, is not a necessity to his life, even though it contained some rather beneficial conditions. The contract could therefore be repudiated by Tonelli and would not be an enforceable contract by law. 

In conclusion, yes minors can sign contracts, but if the contract is not for the necessity of their life than the courts will find the contract to either be void ab initio or voidable.

Thank you,

G.M. 

Fitzgerald, J., & Olivo, L. (2000). Fundamentals of contract law. Toronto, Canada: Emond Montgomery Publications.

Undue Influence - Canadian Olympic Athletes Are They Forced to Sign?

In today's blog I am going to attempt to shed light on the undue influence that our Canadian Olympic Athletes face if they are to participate in the Olympic games. To preface, I will give a bit of context on the matter I am speaking.

Olympic Athlete's train from very young ages. They train every day to become not only the top in their age groups (for their sport) but to become the best in the nation. After all of their years of hard work they finally become eligible to fulfill their dreams of competing in the Olympic games. But wait, before they are able to put all their hard work into this competition they must sign and abide by the contract that the Canadian Olympic Committee forces them to sign. Now what this contract entails I am not completely sure but I do have a pretty good idea that the terms are extremely onerous on these athletes. I also know that they must sign these contracts if they are going to ever be able to compete in the Olympic games. What I am going to argue in this blog is that these Athletes’ are signing these contracts under undue influence.

What is Undue Influence?

Fitzgerald & Olivo (2000) describe Undue Influence as:

•    "Persuasion, pressure, or influence short of actual force that overpowers a weaker party's judgment and free will and imposes the will of the stronger party

The principle can be applied in two types of contract situations:

1.  Actual undue influence, which covers contracts, including gifts, where on party actually engages in conduct that results in applying moral or other undue pressure to obtain a desired contractual result; and

2. presumed undue influence, which arises when the relationship between the parties raises a presumption of undue influence at or before the time the contract was made" (Fitzgerald & Olivo, 2000). 

These have been pulled right from the textbook "Fundamentals of Contract Law" and are not by any means my own words.

Based on these descriptions I believe it already becomes clearer that Canadian Olympic Athletes are signing under undue influence. Take the Canadian Olympic Committee and break down its role in this contractual situation. They are the sole, monopolistic power in charge of all Canadian Athletics’ surrounding the Olympic games. They are the only governing body that our athletes can go to if they want to participate in the games. Immediately in my mind they overpower the athlete signing the agreement. The COC (Canadian Olympic Committee) in my opinion influences (even forces) the weaker party being the athlete into signing these agreements because they know that if these athletes want to compete in the Olympic games they must go through the COC.

Based on what I can see and through the application of the principal of undue influence I believe that the contracts being signed by Olympic Athletes are void. There is not a balance of power when both parties come to the table and the athlete either signs or never completes their life goal of competing in the Olympic games.

I believe there needs to be other options available for these athletes which regulates the contractual agreements and does not force or influence them into signing.

Gavin Moore

Fitzgerald, J., & Olivo, L. (2000). Fundamentals of contract law. Toronto, Canada: Emond Montgomery Publications.

Mike Richards - Contract Termination

    Today we will be taking a look into the contract fiasco that Mike Richards and the L.A. King's of the National Hockey League have gotten themselves into. For some brief context I will overview the basic facts of the case that have been released the public. As I am not privy to some of the information that would be vital to determining how this contract dispute will be settled (i.e Richard's Standard Players' Contract). Some of the information I will be presenting will therefore be somewhat speculative in nature; but from the analysis that I have already done I believe I have found how this case will be settled.

Context:

• Mike Richards is an NHL player who is under contract through to the 2019 season (signed in 2007).
• Richard's is owed 22 million dollars on the remaining 5 years of his contract. 
• Richard's was charged in June of 2015 for possession of OxyContin
• L.A. Kings terminated Richard's contract in August of 2015
• Reason for termination is for "material breach"

In June of 2015, Mike Richard's was caught at a Canadian/American border in Emerson, Manitoba for possession of controlled substance OxyContin. It is illegal to have possession of oxycontin without prescription to this drug. A couple months after Mike Richard's arrest the L.A. King's make a statement that they have exercised their right to terminate his contract for material breach. (Material breach essentially is a breach of contract that states one party fails to perform their obligations under the contract). Now since the L.A. King's have never come out and stated that they are terminating his contract because of recent interaction with the law this part of the blog becomes a little more speculative. 

If the L.A. King's have decided to terminate the contract on the basis that Richard's has been charged for drug possession and is therefore in a material breach of the contract than they will have no grounds for termination because of the Collective bargaining agreement that is signed between the National Hockey Leagues' Players' Association (NHLPA) and the NHL. In the C.B.A. there is a drug policy that states that any player who arrested under drug related charges is to be placed in "Stage 1" of the drug program. If the player is subsequently convicted for use of a controlled substance than they are to be placed in "Stage 2." The stages are not all that important, what is important that the NHLPA and the NHL have already in contract, that if any player is to face legal action because of involvement with drug abuse than they are to first be placed in the predetermined drug program.

This program is in place to protect players from these exact instances. Where the player has some involvement with drugs and need assistance. The NHLPA and NHL step into to aid the player from team's being able to terminate their contracts. 

This whole fiasco of terminating contracts comes down to simply another contract. In the C.B.A. it clearly outlines team protocol of what to do should a drug related issue arise. The L.A. King's in my opinion do not have a right to terminate Mike Richard's contract and he should and most likely will have a successful grievance through the NHLPA.