Brief Fact Summary. A basketball coach was sued after leaving the team he had been coaching to coach another team. It was unclear whether there was a valid agreement between the coach and his original team.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A severability clause "is but an aid to construction, and will not justify a court in declaring a clause as divisible when, considering the entire contract, it obviously is not."
Issue. Were "the option and pension were so essential to the contract that failure to agree on the pertinent terms made the contract unenforceable?"
Held. Maybe. In California, for a contract to be enforceable, "the parties must agree on the essential and material terms." However, "[i]f a contract has been agreed upon and all that remains is good faith negotiations or elaboration of non-essential terms, the contract will be held legally cognizable despite the uncertainties." As to the severability clause in the parties' agreement, the court observed that it "is but an aid to construction, and will not justify a court in declaring a clause as divisible when, considering the entire contract, it obviously is not." The questioned that must be asked is whether the clauses the parties intended to be severed "are essential to the contract." The court observed that there was evidence pointing in both directions as to the parties' intent with regard to the option and pension clauses. The court could not conclude as a matter of law that the option and pension clauses were unessential and thus severable. Further, the tortuous inducement of breach claim against the Los Angeles Lakers had to be reversed because it is not clear whether the Defendant's contract was enforceable.
Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when the evidence points all one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the nonmoving party.View Full Point of Law