Milicic v$.$ Basketball Marketing Company, Inc., $857$ A$\mathrm{.}2$d $689$ Superior Court of Pennsylvania, $2004.$

Facts: The Basketball Marketing Company $($BMC$)$ markets, distributes, and sells basketball apparel and related products. BMC signed a long$-$term endorsement contract with a $16-$year$-$old Serbian player, Darko Milicic, who was virtually unknown in the United States until, two years later, he was the second pick in the NBA draft and became immensely marketable. Four days after his $18$th birthday, Milicic made a buy$-$out offer to BMC$,$ seeking release from his contract so that he could arrange a more lucrative one elsewhere. BMC refused and Milicic then disaffirmed the contract, returning all money and goods he had received from BMC$.$ Believing that Milicic was negotiating an endorsement deal with either Reebok or Adidas, BMC sent both companies letters informing them it had an enforceable endorsement deal with Milicic that was valid for several more years. After receiving this letter Adidas stopped negotiating with Milicic just short of signing a contract. Milicic sued BMC$,$ seeking a preliminary injunction that would prohibit BMC from sending such letters to competitors. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction and BMC appealed.

Issue: Was Milicic entitled to a preliminary injunction?

Holding: Judgment for Milicic affirmed. Excerpts from the court$$s opinion:

Milicic met the four essential prerequisites necessary for injunctive relief. $1.$ Likelihood of success on the merits: Pennsylvania law recognizes, except as to necessities, that the contract of a minor is voidable if the minor disaffirms it at any reasonable time after the minor attains majority. Milicic stated his unequivocal revocation and voidance of the agreement within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority. $2.$ Irreparable harm: Top N$.$B$.$A$.$ draft picks generally solicit, negotiate, and secure endorsement contracts within a short time after the draft to take advantage of the publicity, excitement, and attendant marketability associated with the promotion. BMC blocked these efforts by Milicic. This business opportunity and market advantage losses may aptly be characterized as irreparable injury for purposes of equitable relief. $3.$ Denying the injunction would cause greater injury: BMC$$s refusal to acknowledge Milicic$$s ability to disaffirm is at odds with public policy. Because infants are not competent to contract, the ability to disaffirm protects them from their own immaturity and lack of discretion. Under Pennsylvania law, BMC should have had a guardian appointed for Milicic to oversee his affairs. $4.$ The injunction restored the parties to the status quo.

For the Chapter $19$ Assignment, answer the following questions:

How did this dispute arise?

On what basis did he disaffirm?

Did he fail to disaffirm properly?

Then why didn$$t BMC honor his disaffirmance?

In this part of its opinion does the court really refer to Milicic as an $$infant$?$ Why?

What test does the court apply to evaluate the preliminary injunction?

Did Milicic prove each of these things?