## Facts

- In 1984, 12-year-old actor Andrew M. Kavovit and his parents signed an exclusive personal-management agreement with Scott Eden Management to supervise and promote his entertainment career.
- The agreement ran from February 8, 1984 to February 8, 1986, with an automatic extension to February 8, 1989, and required payment of a 15% commission on Andrew’s gross compensation.
- The agreement also purported to require payment of commissions on residuals/royalties from contracts entered during the management term for the full term of those contracts, including extensions or renewals, even after the management agreement ended.
- In 1986, Andrew signed with a licensed talent agency selected by Eden, paying the agency an additional 10% commission.
- Andrew obtained performance work, including a regular role on “As the World Turns,” generating income beginning in late 1987 and continuing beyond February 1989.
- About one week before the management agreement’s expiration, Andrew (through counsel) disaffirmed the management agreement on the ground of infancy.
- After disaffirmance, Andrew’s father directed the talent agency to pay Andrew directly and cease sending commissions to Eden; Eden received no further commissions.
- Eden sued for (1) commissions allegedly due for appearances before February 8, 1989, (2) ongoing commissions on income from contracts procured during the management term (including after disaffirmance), and (3) $50,000 for tortious interference based on the parents’ redirection of payments.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor may disaffirm a personal-management contract and thereby avoid paying post-disaffirmance commissions tied to performance contracts obtained during the management term.
2. Whether the manager may recover compensation for services rendered and benefits conferred before disaffirmance.
3. Whether the parents’ actions in redirecting payments from the talent agency support a tortious interference claim for lost commissions.

## Decision

- The court held the minor’s disaffirmance was effective and eliminated contractual liability for commissions on income earned after the disaffirmance date, even if derived from contracts obtained during the management term.
- The court allowed Eden to pursue recovery limited to commissions attributable to the pre-disaffirmance period, measured by the reasonable value of services or benefits conferred before disaffirmance.
- The court rejected tortious interference to the extent it sought damages equivalent to post-disaffirmance commissions, reasoning the alleged interference depended on a contractual right extinguished by valid disaffirmance.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, a minor’s contracts are generally voidable at the minor’s election, except for necessaries; absent a governing statute for entertainment contracts, ordinary infancy doctrine applies.
- A contractual clause purporting to bind a minor to pay commissions on future earnings beyond the management term cannot survive the minor’s valid disaffirmance where enforcement would effectively defeat the right to disaffirm.
- After disaffirmance, the counterparty may seek restitution/quantum meruit for the reasonable value of pre-disaffirmance services or benefits, but may not enforce the disaffirmed contract’s ongoing payment obligations.
- Tortious interference requires interference with an existing, legally protected right; it cannot be used to obtain damages that merely replicate contractual payments barred by an effective infancy disaffirmance.

## Conclusion

The court treated the minor’s disaffirmance of an entertainment management agreement as cutting off any contractual right to commissions on post-disaffirmance earnings, while preserving only a limited, restitution-based avenue to recover for pre-disaffirmance services, and it refused to permit tort claims to substitute for unenforceable post-disaffirmance commission rights.


Scott Eden Mgmt. v. Kavovit, 563 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 1990)