Charpentier is a former Los Angeles Rams season ticket holder who alleged that the Rams breached his
contract and defrauded him when the club moved to St. Louis after the 1994 season.
Charpentier alleged that he purchased tickets for the 1994 season, believing that he could renew them
for the following year. In May of 1994, the team announced that it was invoking an escape clause in
its stadium lease, although it claimed that it had no intention to move. According to Charpentier,
the team had been actively discussing a potential move and had no intention of renewing existing
ticket holders' season tickets for 1995. In January 1995, the Rams announced their move to St. Louis
and began selling tickets there under a licensing fee arrangement without offering any renewal form
to Charpentier.
In the Superior Court, Orange County, Charpentier's claims for breach of contract, fraud and breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were dismissed for failure to state a cause of
action. Charpentier then appealed.
Regarding Charpentier's breach of contract claim, the appellate court found that he could not
reasonably assert that the moving of the team broke any particular promise. Furthermore, in regard
to the Rams' alleged failure to offer renewal of the season tickets to Charpentier, the court pointed
out that the renewal interest is a privilege conditioned on the team's playing in Anaheim. Relying
on other cases construing season ticket packages, the court stated that a reasonable Rams season
ticket holder might have understood the contract to purchase season tickets to include a right to
renew such tickets ahead of other prospective buyers if the team continued playing in Anaheim.
However, such rights did not exist if the team moved to St. Louis.
However, the court found merit in the plaintiff's fraud claim. As the court explained, a fraud
claim requires assertion of (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of this falsity, (3) intent to
defraud, and (4) justifiable reliance. Charpentier's allegations that the team's announcements
that it would not move were made purely to induce ticket sales were made with sufficient specificity.
Moreover, he also adequately pled his justifiable reliance upon the team's promises because it is
reasonable to assume that season tickets would not have been purchased if buyers had known of the
team's intent to move. Therefore, this fraud claim was left for a jury determination of the factual
allegations.
Finally, the court found no merit in Charpentier's claim that the team breached its covenant of
good faith and fair dealing by not fielding a quality competitive team, and by allowing star
players to leave in order to reap greater profits. As the court explained, the covenant of good
faith is implied as a supplement to express contractual covenants to prevent a contracting party
from engaging in conduct that frustrates the other party's rights to the benefits of the agreement.
However, Charpentier did not by the right to watch a good team or to have what he might consider
enlightened management decisions made. The Rams were not required to operate as Charpentier might
have preferred or to repay the local fan loyalty in any way.
Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the superior court's dismissal of the breeches of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and contract claims, but remanded the fraud claim for
determination by a jury.
Top of Page
You Make the Call. . . Index
"You Make The Call..." is a newsletter published four times per year (spring,
summer, fall, winter) by the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law
School, PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53201-1881. (414) 288-5815, fax (414) 288-5818,
munsli@vms.csd.mu.edu. (www.marquette.edu/law/sports/call.html).
This publication is distributed via fax and email to individuals in the sports field upon
request.
|
Editorial Staff:
Paul M. Anderson, Editor & Designer
Kirsten Hauser, Associate Editor
|
Copyright © 1999 -- All rights reserved.
