## Facts

- Total Economic Athletic Management of America, Inc. (“Team America”) was a Nebraska corporation whose president, Howard Misle, was certified to negotiate NFL player contracts.
- Bruce Evon Pickens was a University of Nebraska football player who met Misle and obtained a car from Misle’s dealership on “house credit,” paying nothing at purchase.
- About two weeks later, Pickens and Misle signed an NFLPA standard representation agreement naming Team America as Pickens’s contract advisor for negotiating his NFL player contract.
- The representation agreement was undated when signed; Misle testified the omission was inadvertent and later corrected, while Pickens testified the parties intended no binding agreement until a date was later added and the agreement was sent to the NFLPA.
- Before Team America negotiated with an NFL club, Pickens signed a separate NFLPA representation agreement with another advisor, who negotiated Pickens’s multimillion-dollar contract with the Atlanta Falcons.
- Team America sued on an anticipatory breach theory; a jury returned a verdict for Team America and awarded $20,000.

## Issues

1. Whether the verdict-directing instruction improperly assumed the existence of a binding representation agreement rather than submitting contract formation to the jury.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing Pickens’s proposed affirmative converse instructions regarding contract formation.
3. Whether the trial court properly limited damages evidence and argument by excluding speculative commissions tied to later contract years.
4. Whether the $20,000 award was so inadequate that the trial court should have granted additur or a new trial limited to damages.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Team America for $20,000.
- The verdict-directing instruction, based on Missouri Approved Instructions, did not assume a binding contract and adequately left contract existence and breach to the jury.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in refusing Pickens’s proposed affirmative converse instructions because they were not supported by independent evidence or did not properly hypothesize ultimate defensive facts.
- The trial court properly restricted damages to amounts proven with reasonable certainty and excluded speculative damages dependent on uncertain future contingencies (including later seasons under the NFL contract).
- The verdict was within the range of the evidence and not so inadequate as to require additur or a damages-only new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Missouri courts favor use of Missouri Approved Instructions; properly framed instructions may submit contract formation and breach without assuming the existence of a contract.
- An affirmative converse instruction is proper only if supported by independent evidence and if it hypothesizes ultimate facts constituting a complete defense; it may not merely highlight selected evidence.
- Contract damages must be proven with reasonable certainty; recovery cannot rest on speculation or conjecture.
- Commissions or earnings tied to uncertain future events (such as continued roster status in later seasons) are not recoverable when the contingency cannot be shown with reasonable certainty.
- A trial court’s denial of additur or a new trial on damages is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a verdict within the evidentiary range will be upheld.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a jury’s finding of anticipatory breach of a sports-agent representation agreement while enforcing Missouri’s requirements for MAI-compliant instructions and limiting contract damages to non-speculative proof, affirming a $20,000 award and rejecting additur and a damages-only new trial.


Total Econ. Athletic Mgmt. of Am., Inc. v. Pickens, 898 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)