New York Football Giants, Inc. v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, Inc.

291 F.2d 471 (1961)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

New York Football Giants, Inc. v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
291 F.2d 471 (1961)

Facts

Charles Flowers (defendant) was a college football player for the University of Mississippi. On January 1, 1960, the University of Mississippi would be playing in the Sugar Bowl. Flowers was eagerly anticipating playing in the Sugar Bowl. The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Southeastern Conference prohibited any player from participating in the game if the player had signed a contract to play professional football. While on a trip to New York before the Sugar Bowl, Flowers met with a New York Football Giants, Inc. (Giants) (plaintiff) official, Wellington Mara, who presented Flowers with a contract to play for the Giants. Flowers refused to sign the contract because he wanted to play in the Sugar Bowl. Mara persuaded Flowers to execute the contract by promising to keep the contract secret until after the Sugar Bowl. The contract provided that it was not binding until it was approved by the National Football League (NFL) commissioner. Mara promised not to file the contract with the NFL commissioner until after the Sugar Bowl. The Giants gave Flowers bonus checks after he executed the contract. On December 5, 1959, Flowers called the Giants and attempted to withdraw from the contract. Instead of agreeing to Flowers’s withdrawal, the Giants immediately filed Flowers’s contract with the NFL commissioner, who agreed to wait until after the Sugar Bowl to announce the contract. On December 29, Flowers entered into a preliminary verbal agreement to play for the Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, Inc. (Chargers) (defendant), with the parties agreeing to execute the written contract after the Sugar Bowl. Also on December 29, Flowers sent a written withdrawal notice to the Giants and returned the uncashed bonus checks. The Giants sued the Chargers and Flowers, seeking specific performance. The trial court held in favor of Flowers and the Chargers, and the Giants appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tuttle, C.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 832,000 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 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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 832,000 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
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 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