In spring 1989, Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls were in Indianapolis, Indiana, to play against the Indiana Pacers. At the same time, Karla Knafel was singing with a band at a hotel in Indianapolis. After Knafel’s performance, a National Basketball Association referee approached her and introduced her to Jordan via telephone. Knafel and Jordan began a long-distance telephone relationship that continued for several months.
In December 1989, Knafel traveled to Chicago to meet with Jordan, where the couple had unprotected sex for the first time. In November 1990, the couple had unprotected sex again while in Phoenix, Arizona. Shortly after this second meeting, Knafel learned that she was pregnant.
Knafel was “convinced that she was carrying Jordan’s baby” despite having had sex with other male partners. Later, during spring 1991, Knafel informed Jordan “she was pregnant with his child.”
As a result of several conversations about the baby, Knafel alleged that the two had agreed that Jordan would pay her \($5\) million when he retired from professional basketball. In return, Knafel promised she would not file a paternity suit against him and would keep their relationship a secret.
In July 1991, the baby was born. Jordan paid some hospital bills and medical costs, and he paid Knafel \($250,000\) for “her mental pain and anguish arising from her relationship with him.” Knafel continued to keep the relationship and paternity a secret.
After Jordan retired from professional basketball, a lawsuit arose between the parties in 2000. Jordan sought declaratory judgment and an injunction against Knafel, who had been approaching him for the \($5\) million. Knafel filed a counterclaim for Jordan’s alleged breach of contract.
The trial court dismissed all claims, but the appellate court remanded Knafel’s claim for breach of contract. Although Jordan had originally denied the existence of the agreement, on remand he did not contest the existence of the alleged settlement agreement. Instead, Jordan argued that the alleged agreement was not enforceable because it either was fraudulently induced or was based on a mutual mistake of fact. In support of his argument, Jordan produced the affidavit of Dr. Storm, who, after DNA testing, concluded that Jordan was not the child’s father.
In response to Jordan’s argument, Knafel claimed that the paternity of the child was irrelevant to the enforceability of the alleged agreement.
An obstetrician had told Knafel that the baby was conceived on November 19 or 20, 1990 (while she was in Phoenix with Jordan). As a result of this information, Knafel believed that the baby was Jordan’s. Additionally, Knafel asserted that the paternity was irrelevant because Jordan entered into the agreement knowing that she had been having sex with other men.
The trial court ruled in favor of Jordan, finding that “as a result of Knafel’s fraudulent misrepresentation to Jordan that he was the child’s father or, alternatively, as a result of a mutual mistake of fact, the alleged settlement contract is voidable and is therefore unenforceable against Jordan.” Knafel appealed.
1. Imagine you are the judge in this case. Do you think that both parties were able to legally assent to the agreement?
2. Under which ethical system, if any, should Knafel be able to recover the \($5\) million for breach of contract?