Echols v. Pelullo

377 F.3d 272 (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Echols v. Pelullo

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
377 F.3d 272 (2004)

Facts

Professional boxer Antwun Echols (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Banner Promotions, Inc. (Banner) (defendant) pursuant to which Banner would have the exclusive right and obligation to arrange and promote boxing matches for Echols for at least four years. Per the contract, (1) Echols received a $30,000 signing bonus, (2) Banner was required to propose at least three fights per year, and (3) Echols could decline any proposed fight so long as he did not act unreasonably. Section six of the contract set forth the minimum payment Echols would receive for each fight, which depended on whether (and how) the fight was televised and whether Echols would be defending a championship. However, if Echols ever lost a fight, section eight gave Banner the right to cancel the contract or renegotiate section six’s minimum-purse clause. Banner did not cancel the contract after Echols lost his first fight after signing the contract, instead seeking to negotiate Echols’s future purses on a fight-by-fight basis. The parties did that for several years, but Echols believed that Banner proposed below-market purses and was unhappy that Banner rescinded several fight offers when Echols asked for more money. As a result, Echols believed, he was forced to either accept unreasonably low purses or not fight (and thus not be paid) at all. Echols eventually sued Banner and Banner’s president and owner, Arthur Pelullo (defendant), claiming that the contract was unenforceable because the termination of the minimum-purse clause rendered indefinite a material and essential term (i.e., price). The trial court granted summary judgment to Echols. Banner and Pelullo appealed, arguing that Echols’s per-bout compensation was not a material and essential contract term because the contract established an ongoing relationship between the parties and did not concern merely a fight or series of fights.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rendell, J.)

Dissent (Rosenn, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership