Los Angeles Rams Football Club v. Cannon

• Decision Date: 20 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. 32-60 WB.,32-60 WB.
• Citation: Los Angeles Rams Football Club v. Cannon, 185 F.Supp. 717 (S.D. Cal. 1960)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOTBALL CLUB, a partnership, composed of Frederick Levy, Jr., Edwin W. Pauley, Daniel F. Reeves and J. H. Seley, Plaintiff, v. Billy CANNON, Defendant.

185 F. Supp. 717

LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOTBALL CLUB, a partnership, composed of Frederick Levy, Jr., Edwin W. Pauley, Daniel F. Reeves and J. H. Seley, Plaintiff, v.Billy CANNON, Defendant.

No. 32-60 WB.

United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.

June 20, 1960.

John C. McHose and Gordon Wright(of Lillick, Geary, McHose, Roethke & Myers), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

Lowell L. Dryden and Jacob Swartz(of Dryden, Harrington, Horgan & Swartz), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant.

LINDBERG, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Los Angeles Rams Football Club, a member of the National Football League, and being a partnership composed of Frederick Levy, Jr., Edwin W. Pauley, Daniel F. Reeves and J. H. Seley, all of whom are citizens and residents of the State of California, has brought this action seeking injunctive relief and a declaration of right against the defendant, Billy Cannon, a citizen and resident of the State of Louisiana.The matter in controversy exceeds the value of $10,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is within the diversity jurisdiction of this court.

Specifically, plaintiff prays for an injunction to restrain defendant from playing football or engaging in related activities for anyone other than plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent during the term of a contract or contracts allegedly entered into by the parties on November 30, 1959, and an order declaring the existence of a valid written contract or contracts.

Defendant denies he ever entered into a contract or contracts as alleged and further claims, as defenses to plaintiff's claims, fourteen affirmative defenses.

The first six, in substance, deny that the defendant ever entered a binding contract or contracts but that defendant merely made an offer which was not accepted prior to revocation.The others, in brief, consist of:

Fraud and deceit on the part of plaintiff, acting through Pete Rozelle, then the General Manager of the Rams;

The doctrine of unclean hands on the part of plaintiff barring the granting of equitable relief;

Lack of mutuality;

Breach of contract, if any, on the part of plaintiff;

That the contracts, if any, are unfair, inequitable and contrary to public policy;

That if the defendant entered into any contract he did so under a material mistake of fact; and

That the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.

The defendant, Billy Cannon, is a remarkable football player who has just finished his collegiate career with Louisiana State University.The last intercollegiate game he participated in was the Sugar Bowl game on January 1, 1960.Prior to that time, however, on November 28, 1959, or early in the morning of the 29th, he was contacted by telephone by Pete Rozelle, now Commissioner of the National Football League, but who was then and at all times material to the dispute here involved General Manager for the Los Angeles Rams.Mr. Rozelle was in Baltimore, Maryland and Billy Cannon was then in New York.

There is no question about the call being made but there is serious dispute as to the conversation had.However, we can safely assume that it had to do with football.(At this time I do not attempt to resolve the factual disputes but leave that for later consideration as I reach the issues.)

The telephone call mentioned occurred less than thirty-six hours before the annual selection meeting of the National Football League which was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Rams, after sifting an astonishing amount of information through a complex scouting system, concluded that Billy Cannon was the player of the current graduating crop they would most like to see on their team.The Rams, by virtue of ten losses and only two wins last season were tied for last place in the League, but as every cloud has its silver lining this fact also tied them for first draft choice at the above-mentioned selection meeting.The tie was to be broken by the flip of a coin.Thus it was that the Rams stood a fifty-fifty chance of having the first draft choice.

It has been the Rams' contention throughout that this position on the draft is so valuable that careful steps are undertaken to assure the team having the choice that it is not wasted on a player not willing to play for that team.The telephone call referred to was for the purpose of exploring that question.

On the 29th there was another telephone conversation between Mr. Rozelle and the defendant and on this occasion Mr. Rozelle was in Philadelphia.That night Billy Cannon took a train from New York to Philadelphia and registered at the Sheraton Hotel under the name of Billy Gunn at the suggestion and arrangement of Mr. Rozelle.

On the following day the selection meeting was held.The Rams won the toss of the coin and selected Billy Cannon as its first draft choice.

Immediately following the meeting defendant and Mr. Rozelle got together, met with members of the press, and discussed for the benefit of the press the fact that the Rams had received the first draft choice and had selected Billy Cannon.

Following the press interview Cannon and Rozelle went to Rozelle's hotel room where Cannon signed three sets of National Football Player Contract forms covering the years 1960, 1961 and 1962, and took possession of two checks, one for $10,000 and the other for $500.

Mr. Rozelle, on or about December 1st, left one set of said forms as filled out— that set embracing the 1960 season— with the then acting Commissioner, Mr. Gunsel.

Some two weeks later Billy Cannon was contacted on behalf of a Mr. K. S. Adams, Jr., who is the owner or part owner of the Houston Oilers, a football club in the recently-formed American Football League.On or about December 22nd Cannon met with Mr. Adams and others in Baton Rouge and negotiations were had with respect to a so-called personal service contract including the playing of football.

On December 30, 1959Billy Cannon sent to the Rams a letter wherein he announced that he no longer desired to play for the Rams, purportedly revoked any offer he may have made to play for the Rams, and returned therewith the two checks above mentioned uncashed and unendorsed.

Prior thereto, however, it is contended that Mr. Gunsel approved the contract for the 1960 season, and the exhibit as admitted, Exhibit A, bears the signature of Mr. Gunsel alongside of which the date December 1, 1959 was written in.

At this point I propose to treat the question of whether or not a contract or contracts ever came into existence, dealing first with the instruments themselves before getting into the difficult matter of what transpired prior to and at the time of signing.The question, then, is, What is the nature of the several documents signed by Billy Cannon November 30, 1959?Disregarding for the moment the interpretations of the parties, the court must look to the instruments themselves.

We have three sets of instruments, in triplicate, each denominated National Football League Standard Players Contract, admitted in evidence as plaintiff's Exhibits A, B, C and H; H being a photo copy of the League copy of the first set.The printed form is identical in each case with the exception that there are three riders attached to each copy of the first set.The first set has the year 1960 typed in the appropriate blank; the second, 1961; and the third, 1962.

Each form states that it is a contract between Los Angeles Rams Football Club, thereinafter called the Club, and Billy Cannon, thereafter called the player.It states that in consideration of the respective promises contained therein the parties agree to the following terms:

Paragraph 1 thereunder reads as follows:

"1.The term of this contract shall be from the date of execution hereof until the first day of May following the close of the football season commencing in ____ (blank for the insertion of a given year) subject, however, to rights of prior termination as specified herein."

Paragraph 2 obligates the player to play football for the club and the club, subject to the provisions of the contract, to hire the player as a skilled football player during the term of the contract.

Paragraph 3 contains the club's promise "to pay the player each football season during the term of this contract the sum of $____" payable according to a given schedule.

Paragraph 4 contains the player's promise to comply with the constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations of the League and of the Club, which are made a part of the contract; the right of termination for failure to so comply; the player's agreement to submit himself to the discipline of the League and Club; the handling of disputes by the Commissioner; and other details unimportant to this litigation.

Paragraph 5 is the negative covenant whereby the player promises not to play football or engage in related activities during the term of the contract for anyone else without the permission of the Club and Commissioner.

Paragraph 6 contains the player's warranty that he is and will continue to be sufficiently highly skilled in all types of football teamplay to play professional football of the caliber required by the Club and League and that he will perform to the complete satisfaction of the Club and its Head Coach.The provision then provides the right of termination should the player fail to achieve this satisfaction.

Paragraph 7 relates to the schedule of settlement in the event of such termination.

In Paragraph 8 the player represents that he has exceptional skill as a football player and that money damages would not compensate the loss thereof and he therefore agrees that the Club may enjoin him by appropriate injunction in the event of breach.

Paragraph 9 provides for sale or assignment of the contract.

Paragraph 10 provides for renewal for a further term subject to certain conditions.

Paragraph 11 contains the player's acknowledgement of the right and power of the Commissioner to execute certain disciplinary measures in relation to...