Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Milicic v. Basketball Marketing Co., Inc. Case Brief

Superior Court of Pennsylvania2004Docket #2179290
857 A.2d 689 2004 Pa. Super. 333 2004 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2787

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

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A minor athlete disaffirmed an endorsement contract. The company then interfered with his new deal prospects. The court upheld a preliminary injunction against the company, finding the minor likely to succeed.

Legal Significance: Affirms a minor’s right to disaffirm contracts and clarifies that asserting rights under a disaffirmed contract to third parties can constitute tortious interference supporting injunctive relief.

Milicic v. Basketball Marketing Co., 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

Darko Milicic, a 16-year-old basketball player, entered into an endorsement agreement with The Basketball Marketing Company Inc. (BMC). The agreement, governed by Pennsylvania law, was amended twice. After turning 18 and becoming a top NBA draft prospect, Milicic sought to buy out the agreement. When negotiations failed, Milicic, eleven days after his 18th birthday, sent BMC a letter disaffirming the contract and began returning all monies and products received. BMC refused to accept the disaffirmance and sent letters to Adidas and Reebok, with whom Milicic was negotiating new endorsement deals. These letters stated BMC had a valid and enforceable contract with Milicic and were involved in a contractual dispute. As a result, Adidas ceased negotiations with Milicic. Milicic sought and was granted a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction against BMC to prevent further interference. BMC appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the trial court have reasonable grounds to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining the appellant from interfering with the appellee’s prospective contractual relations, based on the appellee’s disaffirmance of a contract entered into as a minor and the appellant’s subsequent communications with third parties asserting the contract’s validity?

Yes, the trial court properly granted the preliminary injunction. The appellee demonstrated 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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Did the trial court have reasonable grounds to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining the appellant from interfering with the appellee’s prospective contractual relations, based on the appellee’s disaffirmance of a contract entered into as a minor and the appellant’s subsequent communications with third parties asserting the contract’s validity?

Conclusion

This case reinforces the robust protection afforded to minors regarding their contractual 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 exerc

Legal Rule

Under Pennsylvania law, a contract entered into by a minor is voidable 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 volu

Legal Analysis

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding reasonable grounds for 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 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 ci

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Summary unavailable

No flash summary is available for this opinion.

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More