Connection lost
Server error
IN RE WORLDCOM, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Michael Jordan’s damage claim for a rejected endorsement deal was not capped as an “employment contract.” However, the court found he failed to mitigate damages because he intentionally withdrew from the endorsement market, rejecting his “lost volume seller” argument.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies the “lost volume seller” doctrine for personal services, holding that the seller must prove not only the capacity but also the subjective intent to enter into additional contracts, independent of the breach, to be excused from the duty to mitigate.
IN RE WORLDCOM, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Michael Jordan entered into a ten-year endorsement agreement with WorldCom, Inc. (MCI) for an annual compensation of $2 million. In 2002, WorldCom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, in 2003, rejected the agreement with two years remaining. Jordan filed a claim for the unpaid $4 million for the final two years. WorldCom objected, arguing Jordan failed to mitigate his damages. The undisputed evidence, including testimony from Jordan’s agent and financial advisor, established that at the time of the rejection, Jordan had implemented a business strategy of not accepting new endorsements. This decision was based on a desire to avoid diluting his brand and to cultivate an image more suitable for his primary goal of becoming a majority owner of an NBA franchise. Jordan countered that he was a “lost volume seller” because he had the capacity to take on numerous endorsements simultaneously, and thus had no duty to mitigate. He argued any new deal would have been an additional opportunity, not a replacement for the lost MCI contract.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a celebrity endorser who has the capacity to perform additional contracts, but who subjectively intends to reduce their endorsement activities for unrelated business reasons, considered a “lost volume seller” excused from the duty to mitigate damages following a breach of contract?
No. Jordan was not a lost volume seller because he failed to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a celebrity endorser who has the capacity to perform additional contracts, but who subjectively intends to reduce their endorsement activities for unrelated business reasons, considered a “lost volume seller” excused from the duty to mitigate damages following a breach of contract?
Conclusion
This case establishes a significant limitation on the lost volume seller doctrine Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe
Legal Rule
To qualify as a "lost volume seller" excused from the duty to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the requirements of the lost volume seller Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding 1: Michael Jordan was an independent contractor, not an employee,