Legal Case: Wayne Rooney

1949 WordsApr 28, 20138 Pages
Coursework Assignment: ULMS721 Football and the Law Legal Review: Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports Management Ltd and another Minor – Contract – Necessaries – Footballer entering into agency agreement with claimant – Footballer being minor at time of agreement – Footballer giving notice of termination of agreement – Claimant alleging defendant inducing breach of contract – Defendant seeking summary judgment on ground that contract voidable – Whether contract falling within class enforceable against minor [2006] EWHC 2812 (Ch), (Transcript: Cater Walsh Reporting) 26 JULY 2006 T King QC for the Claimant V Joffe QC and D Casement for the Defendants Quinn Barrow; Halliwells LLP JUDGE HODGE QC (sitting as a judge of the High…show more content…
-2- Court Ruling The court ruled that the class of contract was not analogous to those described as necessaries, which include contracts of apprenticeship, education and service. The court differentiated the role between the role of a football agent and music manager due to the provision of necessaries. However, in this particular case, the claimant did not assist Mr. Rooney in finding employment with Everton FC. If the claimant had introduced Mr. Rooney to a club and provided advice on other football matters, the ruling may have been different. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that future cases involving football agents and minors will be bound by this ruling. In addition, the court ruled that there was no liability for the torts of interference with, or inducing the breach of, a contract that was voidable due to the fact Mr. Rooney was a minor. The December 2000 agreement had been voidable at the option of the player even though the contract was valid until it was avoided. The ruling concurred with Greig v Insole, World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Insole [1978] and set a precedent for future cases regarding torts and procuring the breach of a

More about Legal Case: Wayne Rooney

Open Document