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 18th 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.

Questions:

1. Was Milicic entitled to a preliminary injunction?

2. How did this dispute arise?

3. On what basis did he disaffirm?

4. Did he fail to disaffirm properly?

5. Then why didn’t BMC honor his disaffirmance?

6. In this part of its opinion does the court really refer to Milicic as an “infant?” Why?

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

8. Did Milicic prove each of these things?