Blackmon v. Iverson

Brief Fact Summary.

Jamil Blackmon (Blackmon) sued Allen Iverson (Iverson) for breach of contract when Iverson did not pay Blackmon 25 percent of the proceeds from the use of the nickname “The Answer,” per their oral agreement. 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A contract is required to have consideration in order to be binding. 

Facts.

Jamil Blackmon (Blackmon) was a family friend of Allen Iverson (Iversn) and provided financial support and shelter to Iverson’s family on occasion. Blackmon suggested that Iverson use the nickname “The Answer” when he entered a basketball league and Iverson promised Blackmon 25 percent of any proceeds, including merchandise, that came from the use of the nickname. When Iverson joined the NBA in 1996, Blackmon sought a contract with Reebok to sell merchandise with the logo “The Answer.” Blackmon sued Iverson for breach of contract for not receiving his portion of the proceeds. Iverson filed a motion to dismiss. 

Issue.

Whether a contract is required to have consideration in order to be binding. 

Held.

Yes. The nickname was proposed to Iverson prior to Iverson’s decision to pay Blackmon 25 percent of any proceeds from the use of the nickname. This constitutes past consideration and past consideration does not constitute a contract. Iverson’s motion to dismiss was granted. 

Discussion.

Consideration exists in a contract if there is a benefit to the promisor or forbearance on the part of the promisee that is in the form of an act, forbearance, or return promise in return for the original promise. Without consideration, no contract exists.