[chucksabr]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION

A Professional Baseballer’s Contract
Hunt v. Everton Baseball Club

(Before Mr. Justice Pelfrey and Mr. Justice Davis)

Their Lordships allowed this appeal from the judgment of the Judge of the Liverpool County Court. The plaintiff was a professional baseballer, and on October 11, 1930, he entered into a written agreement with the defendant club by which he was to receive £9 a week beginning with the first day of spring practise, March 23, 1931, until September 26, 1931, a period of twenty seven weeks, in consideration of his services as a player. Another clause provided that the plaintiff should observe and be subject to all the rules, regulations, and by-laws of the Baseball Association, Baseball League, and any other combination of which the club should be a member, and that, if any suspension or termination of the baseball season were decided on by the Baseball Association, the payment of wages to the plaintiff should likewise be suspended or terminated.

Effective on the date of the agreement, the rules of the Baseball League provided that the maximum wage for players should be £9 a week. During the continuance of the agreement it was decreased to £6 a week. The defendants refused to pay the plaintiff £9 a week, contending that the clause which made the plaintiff subject to the rules of the League bound him to accept alterations which were made in those rules from time to time. The plaintiff thereupon brought this action in the County Court claiming £81. The County Count judge gave judgment in favour of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.

Mr. J. E. Singleton, K.C., and Mr. F. Brocklehurst appeared for the appellant; Mr. Wingate Saul, K.C., and Mr. P. E. Sandlands for the respondents.

Judgments.

Mr. Justice Pelfrey, in giving judgment, said that the case was a test case, and the judgment of the Court would affect many baseball players and their clubs. The agreement contained what was, on the face of it, an unqualified obligation on the club to pay the plaintiff £9 a week. The County Court Judge had considered only one of the questions which arose in the case. He had assumed that the plaintiff was subject to the rules of the Baseball League, and had asked himself whether he was subject to those rules as altered from time to time, or only to those which were in force when the agreement was made. The County Court Judge had overlooked the very important question which arose before the question which he had dealt with was reached—namely, whether the plaintiff was subject to those rules at all.

In his (his Lordship’s) opinion, the plaintiff was not subject to those rules, and he had never submitted, so far as the agreement for payment was concerned, to the power of the League to alter its rules and diminish the maximum wage. The clause providing for the payment of £9 a week could have been made subject to the rules for the time being for the League, but it had not been so drafted. The clause which provided that the player should be subject to the rules did not qualify the payment clause. That clause provided for two things—(a) the extent to which the player was to be personally bound by the rules of the League; and (b) the extent to which the agreement was to be subject to those rules. That was limited to one matter—namely, the termination or suspension of the season by the Baseball Association and the effect on the payment of wages.

The defendant’s argument appeared to be unreasonable. New League rules might reduce the maximum salary from £9 to £4 6s. A man who had been content to be bound by an agreement for half a year at £9 would find his remuneration halved. No one could know whether he would have entered into the agreement at all if he had known that such terms were possible. There was no option for him under the contract: he would still be bound. The appeal would be allowed.

Mr. Justice Davis agreed.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, with costs, and judgment entered for the plaintiff for £81. Leave to appeal was granted.

Solicitors: Mr. T. H. Hinchcliffe, Liverpool; Messrs. Mott and Parkes, for Messrs. Noke and Batchelor, Bootle.