Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 Essays

Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 Essays Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 Paper Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 Paper Sports and the Law: Case Presentation N. E. central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N. E. 2d 506, ct. C. P. Cuyahoga cty. OH 1961 1. Facts of the Case The plaintiff in this case is Central NY Basketball, Inc. , who owns the Syracuse Nationals of the National Basketball league (NBA). There are two defendants: Richard Barnett, a #1 draft choice of the plaintiff in 1959, and Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. , who owns the Cleveland Pipers of the American Basketball league (ABL). The defendant, Barnett, is currently under contract with the plaintiff. 2. Procedure This case was heard in the Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, which would be considered to be on the trial court level. 3. Law in Question The law in question would be breach of contract by the defendants. 4. What is the issue? The defendant, Richard Barnett, played for the plaintiff in both the year he was drafted 1959 and the following season in 1960 under a signed and executed Uniform Player Contract of the National Basketball Association. This contract also included an option for the plaintiff to renew said contract for an additional year. The breach of contract occurred when the defendant, Barnett, refused to play with and for the plaintiff during the 1961-62 season. Barnett made and entered into an American Basketball League with the defendant, Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. , to render his services for the 1961-62 season. The plaintiff claims that it cannot be properly compensated for damages in an action at law for the loss of Barnetts services and is petitioning for Barnett to not be allowed to play for the defendant, Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. 5. Holding The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the injunction request for the 1961-62 season was granted and after that season would be dissolved. 6. Courts Reasoning The courts reasoning for their decision was that there was no adequate and complete remedy at law and the injury to the plaintiff is irreparable. 7. My opinion I completely agree with the decision made by the court to refuse the defendant, Barnett, from playing for the co-defendant Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. In the case Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. ies to Justify entering into a contract with Barnett because he does not possess great skill but they do still acknowledge that he is under contract with the plaintiff. So no matter the skill level he is still under contract, which means that he cannot enter into another one until the current one is over. Eventually after the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff both teams did however come to an agreement where Barnett was allowed to play for the Cleveland Pipers of the ABL. Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 2d 506, Ct. C. P. Cuyahoga cty. OH 1961 By demarchi411