I already know that the answer is posted on other sites and course hero for this but I need a different answers and a bit long using legal terms. Please explain it well thank you

At age 16, Smith was a promising hockey player and was drafted by the Fredericton Firebirds to play for their club, a junior team one step below the professional league. One year into the contract, the Firebirds terminated the contract and required all of their players to sign new four-year contracts. Smith was to receive $250 weekly, along with room and board and the flexibility to complete his high school studies. In return, Smith agreed to play only for Firebirds and gave them the right to trade him to any other team or terminate the contract at any time. On his 18thbirthday, Smith visited the general manager of the Firebirds, and repudiated his contract. Smith had received offers from the professional league, which promised him far greater instruction with superior coaching, as well as $200,000 per season. Smith felt that an early jump on a professional career was vital to him, considering the early retirement age of most hockey players. The general manager was upset with Smith, and would sue him if he moved tot pro league. Smith signed the contract with the professional team, and the general manager did sue him. Discuss the contractual issues raised in this case, and discuss in particular the issues of capacity, enforceability, and repudiation that bear in this instance. What aspects would a judge take into account in rendering a decision and why?