Smehlik v. Athletes And Artists, Inc.

61 F. Supp. 1162 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was drafted by the Sabres in the 1990 NHL draft. On August 28, 1990, while still in Czechoslovakia, he signed an agreement with D under which, D was to act as his exclusive representative in the negotiation of professional hockey contracts with the Sabres, or with whichever team held his rights. The P-D agreement had an initial term of two years, or until such time as D had completed the negotiation of P's next professional hockey contract, whichever was longer. Negotiations started, but after two years with no contract, D received a letter from P stating that he was terminating his agreement. Almost immediately thereafter, P entered into a contract with the Sabres. That contract was negotiated by Rich Winter of The Entertainment & Sports Corporation, P's current agent. P alleges that on or about August 28, 1990, D's representative Carl Hron told him: (1) that A&A could obtain a contract for him with the Sabres for the 1991/92 season; (2) that it could 'make a deal right away;' (3) that it would arrange for him to participate in the Sabres' 1991 training camp; and (4) that it would make all necessary arrangements to enable him to attend the Sabres' 1991 training camp, which required, inter alia, obtaining a release from his Czech hockey club, T.J. Vitkovice. P alleges that these representations were made with the intent to deceive him and to induce him to sign an agreement. P claims that he reasonably relied on the representations in deciding to sign the agreement. P alleges that D failed in all four representations and that D 'misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose material facts including that it either did not have sufficient knowledge and/or experience in dealing with Czechoslovak laws and practices and/or that if it had adequate knowledge and/or experience with respect to same, that it would fail to utilize same.' D has moved to dismiss the fraud claim under 12(b)(6) in that D made a false promise to perform under the contract, a promise which, it maintains, cannot, under New York law, convert a breach of contract claim into one for fraud. P claims the fraudulent promises made went beyond D's general obligation under the written contract to 'use its best efforts to secure offers' from the Sabres or other NHL clubs. P claims that one who is fraudulently induced to enter into a contract may maintain a cause of action for fraud separate from his breach of contract cause of action, when the fraud allegations are, as he claims they are here, distinct from the breach of contract claim.