## Facts

- Darko Milicic, a Serbian basketball player, signed an endorsement agreement with The Basketball Marketing Company, Inc., doing business as AND 1, when he was 16 years old.
- The agreement contained a Pennsylvania choice-of-law clause and was later amended as to compensation and payees while leaving other terms intact.
- By 2003, Milicic’s anticipated NBA draft position increased his endorsement value.
- Shortly after turning 18, Milicic attempted to buy out the AND 1 agreement; AND 1 refused.
- Within days, Milicic sent a written disaffirmance of the agreement and began returning all money and products received under the contract (or their equivalent value).
- AND 1 rejected the disaffirmance and sent letters to Adidas and Reebok asserting it had a “valid and enforceable” contract with Milicic and warning against interference with AND 1’s rights.
- After receiving the letter, Adidas ceased negotiations with Milicic.
- Milicic sued seeking a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief on enforceability; the trial court issued a TRO and then a preliminary injunction barring AND 1 from representing to third parties that it had a valid endorsement contract with Milicic.
- AND 1 appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding AND 1’s letters to potential endorsers sufficiently wrongful to support a preliminary injunction.
2. Whether Milicic showed a likelihood of success that, as a former minor, he could disaffirm the endorsement agreement after reaching majority by timely notice and tender back of consideration.
3. Whether Milicic satisfied Pennsylvania’s requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, including irreparable harm, balancing of hardships, and preservation of the status quo.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order granting the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Milicic demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, including his right to disaffirm a contract made during minority.
- The court agreed that AND 1’s assertions to Adidas and Reebok of a continuing “valid and enforceable” contract, despite Milicic’s disaffirmance and tender back, supported a finding of wrongful interference for purposes of interim relief.
- The court concluded Milicic showed irreparable harm because the letters had already halted negotiations and threatened time-sensitive, career-related endorsement opportunities not readily compensable by money damages.
- The injunction was deemed reasonably tailored to stop the challenged conduct while leaving AND 1 free to litigate contract validity on the merits, thereby maintaining the status quo.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, a contract entered into during minority is voidable at the minor’s option; upon reaching majority, the former minor may disaffirm within a reasonable time and must return consideration to the extent possible.
- A preliminary injunction requires, among other elements, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, immediate irreparable harm not adequately remediable by damages, a balance of harms favoring the movant, and relief reasonably suited to preserve the status quo and prevent the complained-of conduct.
- Communications to third parties asserting contract rights may support injunctive relief where, in light of the likely legal invalidity or voidability of the asserted rights, the communications function as improper interference with existing or prospective business relations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed interim relief preventing AND 1 from telling third parties it had an enforceable endorsement contract with Milicic, concluding that Milicic likely validly disaffirmed a contract made as a minor, that the letters risked irreparable and immediate harm to endorsement opportunities, and that the injunction properly preserved the status quo pending final adjudication.


Milicic v. The Basketball Marketing Co., Inc., 857 A.2d 689 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004)