[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

The defense points to Exhibit A, first sentence of description: "If there is any item in the field of sports collectibles that needs no embellishment, it is this historic piece: the final touchdown ball of Tom Brady’s career."

Though represented as fact that the ball was the final touchdown of Tom Brady's career, his final touchdown in fact occurred in 2023. As such, whether intentional or innocent, the factual representation is false. This representation was material to the contract, as the plaintiff notes the football is a "historic piece" requiring no embellishment, because it was represented to be the final touchdown ball of Tom Brady's career. Moreover, whether known or unknown to the parties at the time of the auction, Tom Brady had, in fact, been in negotiations with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to extend his career prior to the conclusion of the auction. As such, a material ambiguity concerning the consideration for defendant's promise to pay precludes a meeting of the minds as to what was being purchased, and an enforceable contract was not forged between the parties.

I would liken this to a Honus Wagner card that sells at auction for $2 million and is later deemed to be fake by a third party authenticator. At the time of the sale, the auction house and the buyer (and perhaps the seller) all believed the card was an original. The contract was premised on the card being an original, authentic Honus Wagner card. In fact, and unknown to all parties, the Honus Wagner card was not what the parties had bargained for. So, the buyer would be entitled to void the contract, even though the card that was listed could technically be provided to the buyer.

Common sense will likely rule the day on this one.

I see this as a frustration of purpose case, not a misrepresentation case or meeting of the minds case. The problem here is something that happened AFTER formation. The issue is whether performance is now excused.