## Facts

- Jamil Blackmon developed a close personal relationship with Allen Iverson and his family beginning in 1987, providing support such as housing, transportation, tutoring, and financial help.
- In July 1994, Blackmon suggested Iverson use the nickname “The Answer” and discussed its marketing use on apparel and related products, including potential logos.
- Blackmon alleged that later the same evening Iverson promised to pay him 25% of proceeds from merchandise and products using “The Answer.”
- Blackmon alleged he later spent time and money further developing the nickname’s branding concepts, including arranging creation of logo designs.
- After Iverson’s professional success and a commercial relationship involving “The Answer” merchandise, Blackmon alleged Iverson repeated the promise but never paid him.
- Blackmon sued asserting contract and quasi-contract theories and later proceeded on promissory estoppel after amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged promise to share merchandise proceeds was supported by consideration where the purported benefit (the nickname and concept) was supplied before the promise.
2. Whether a claim for “idea misappropriation” was legally cognizable on allegations that primarily sounded in contract.
3. Whether unjust enrichment (quantum meruit) applied to benefits conferred in the context of a close personal relationship.
4. Whether promissory estoppel permitted recovery of expectation damages (lost profits/percentage of proceeds) or only reliance damages.
5. Whether a judgment closing the case, while referencing potential reopening for reliance damages, was a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held it had appellate jurisdiction because the district court entered judgment for the defendant and closed the case, constituting a final decision under § 1291.
- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim because the alleged promise was supported only by past consideration.
- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the idea-misappropriation claim as not viable on the pleaded facts.
- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the unjust-enrichment claim, rejecting recovery for benefits tied to the parties’ personal relationship and circumstances alleged.
- The court of appeals affirmed the limitation of promissory estoppel to reliance damages, rejecting expectation damages such as lost profits or a 25% share of proceeds.

## Legal Principles

- A promise made after an asserted benefit has already been conferred is unsupported by consideration where the benefit was not bargained for in exchange for the promise; past consideration does not create an enforceable contract.
- Where allegations essentially describe an asserted bargain or promise, labeling the claim as “idea misappropriation” does not create a separate actionable theory absent a recognized, protectable interest and a distinct non-contract wrong.
- Unjust enrichment requires circumstances making it inequitable for the defendant to retain a benefit without payment; acts arising from personal relationships and support may be insufficient to impose quasi-contract liability on the pleaded facts.
- Promissory estoppel may permit recovery for detrimental reliance on a clear, foreseeable promise, but remedies may be limited to reliance damages rather than expectation damages when no enforceable contract exists.
- For appellate finality, an order entering judgment for the defendant and closing the case is final under § 1291 even if it contemplates possible reopening under specified conditions.

## Conclusion

The judgment for Iverson was affirmed because the alleged profit-sharing promise was based on past consideration and thus not an enforceable contract, the non-contract claims were not viable on the pleaded facts, and any promissory-estoppel recovery was limited to reliance damages rather than lost profits or a percentage of proceeds.


Blackmon v. Iverson, 317 F. App’x 123 (3d Cir. 2008)