Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdamagesinjunctiontrialcorporation
contractdamagesinjunctiontrialcivil procedure

Related Cases

KSW Mechanical Services v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 992 F.Supp.2d 135, 82 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 372
View Case »
Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540, 23 S.Ct. 754, 47 L.Ed. 1171
View Case »
Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714, 215 P.2d 133
View Case »
Slidell, Inc. v. Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc., 460 F.3d 1047
View Case »
Oral-X Corp. v. Farnam Companies, Inc., 931 F.2d 667, 16 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 111
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lemat Corp. v. Barry, 275 Cal.App.2d 671, 80 Cal.Rptr. 240

Facts

Lemat Corporation, the owner of the San Francisco Warriors, entered into a contract with player Richard F. Barry III for the 1966-1967 season. After Barry did not sign a proposed contract for the following season, Lemat sought injunctive relief to prevent him from playing for another team. The trial court found that Barry's services were unique and that his absence would cause irreparable harm to the Warriors, leading to the issuance of a one-year injunction against him.

Barry played professional basketball for the Warriors during the 1966—1967 season and performed all of the covenants and conditions of the contract and was paid the full compensation of $75,000 provided for by the contract.

Issue

Whether Lemat Corporation was entitled to injunctive relief for seven years and damages beyond the one-year injunction granted by the trial court.

Lemat contends that it was entitled to a permanent injunction for seven years, as well as damages in the amount found by the trial court.

Rule

A contract for unique personal services may be enforced for a term not to exceed seven years, but the court may only grant injunctive relief for the duration of the contract term.

Labor Code, section 2855: ‘A contract to render personal service, other than a contract of apprenticeship as provided in Chapter 4 of this division, may not be enforced against the employee beyond seven years from the commencement of service under it.’

Analysis

The court analyzed the contract's renewal option and determined that it allowed for a one-year extension, which was reasonable and supported by sufficient consideration. The court concluded that the Warriors could not claim injunctive relief beyond the contract's term, as Barry's breach did not extend the contract's duration or broaden the Warriors' rights.

The court specifically rejected the argument put forth by the competing team, that the renewal provision applies to the whole contract and, therefore, the contract was one for perpetual services and consequently void.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, granting Lemat a one-year injunction but denying any further injunctive relief or damages.

We hold that the trial court properly concluded that Barry's breach could not enlarge Lemat's rights to an injunction beyond the term of the contract.

Who won?

Lemat Corporation prevailed in obtaining a one-year injunction against Barry, but the court ruled against its claims for a longer injunction and damages, stating that the contract's terms did not support such relief.

Lemat, however, argues that while Barnett may be an accurate statement of the law of Ohio, California Labor Code, section 2855 (and the related provisions of Civil Code, section 3423 and Code of Civil Procedure, section 526) indicate a public policy that compels a different result in this instance.

You must be