The appellant purchaser of a one-half interest of a professional football team sought review of an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which entered judgment in favor of the respondent coach in a breach of contract action for payment of monies due under a coaching contract.
Nakase Law Firm shares personal injury defined
Overview
The respondent coach entered into a contract with the owner of a professional football team, to provide coaching services to the football team for the season. Subsequently, the appellant purchaser acquired a one-half interest in the football team, and assumed the management, control, and operation of the enterprise. Under the purchase contract, the purchaser assumed half the obligations and rights under the contract with the coach. The coach filed a breach of contract action for money he was allegedly due under the coaching contract. Judgment was rendered in favor of the coach, and the purchaser sought review. The court held that the admission of parol evidence was proper concerning the intent of the purchaser to assume obligations of the owner under the coaching contract as well as the services of the coach in managing the team. Further, the court held that the trial court properly computed damages based upon the full three-year period of the contract, but erred in application of the termination clause of the contract, which became the measure of damages for the breach.
Outcome
The court reversed judgment with directions to the trial court to amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law in order to compute the measure of damages with the termination clause of the coaching contract.
