Baltimore Baseball Club v. Pickett

In November 1891, the Baltimore Baseball Club (club) (defendant) and John T. Pickett (plaintiff) entered into a contract under which Pickett agreed to play baseball for the club until October 1892 in exchange for $3,000. The contract did not specify Pickett’s required level of baseball skill. Pickett was to be paid a $500 advance, with the remaining salary to be paid on the first and fifteenth of each month of the season. The club was not a member of baseball’s National League (league) when the contract was signed, but it joined the league in January 1892. The club was unhappy with Pickett’s play and released him on June 1 after providing 10 days’ notice. The contract did not expressly provide the club with this right. As of Pickett’s release, the club had paid his advance and four salary installments. When the club refused to pay any additional salary, Pickett sued for the unpaid amount. The club argued it did not owe anything to Pickett because (1) notwithstanding the contract’s specified term until October, it was customary in baseball that a club could release a player for poor performance upon 10 days’ notice and it had complied with this custom or usage and (2) he lacked the skill, knowledge, and efficiency (collectively, skill) needed to play in the league. The trial court refused to submit the club’s custom or usage argument to the jury. It also rejected the club’s claim that Pickett did not have the skill to play in the league, noting that the contract predated the club’s membership in the league. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury that it had to find for the club only if Pickett did not have and use the skill that other players of ordinary skill had and used and he was released for this reason. However, after hearing testimony from former baseball players attesting to Pickett’s skill, the jury found for Pickett. The club appealed.