Detroit Lions, Inc. v. Argovitz
1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19582, 580 F. Supp. 542 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract negotiated by an agent is voidable by the principal if the agent had a personal interest in the transaction that was adverse to the principal's interest, unless the agent fully disclosed all material facts to the principal and the principal consented.
Facts:
- Billy Sims, a professional football player, was represented by agent Jerry Argovitz.
- In early 1983, while representing Sims in contract negotiations with the Detroit Lions, Argovitz acquired an ownership interest in and became president of a new USFL team, the Houston Gamblers.
- Sims was not aware of the full extent of Argovitz's financial stake in the Gamblers, which included a 29% ownership interest and a large annual salary.
- Argovitz misrepresented the status of the ongoing negotiations with the Lions to Sims, making Sims believe the Lions were not negotiating in good faith.
- On June 29, 1983, Argovitz flew Sims to Houston to negotiate with the Gamblers, the team Argovitz partially owned.
- After the Gamblers made an offer on June 30, 1983, Sims, who was emotionally upset with the Lions due to Argovitz's misrepresentations, instructed Argovitz not to contact the Lions with a counter-offer.
- Argovitz failed to use the Gamblers' offer as leverage to secure a better deal from the Lions and did not inform Sims that the Lions were still very interested and close to reaching an agreement.
- On July 1, 1983, Sims signed a contract with the Gamblers, and on December 16, 1983, he signed a second contract with the Detroit Lions.
Procedural Posture:
- The Detroit Lions, Inc. and Billy R. Sims filed a complaint in the Oakland County Circuit Court (a state trial court) against Jerry Argovitz and the Houston Gamblers, Inc.
- The complaint sought a judicial determination that the contract between Sims and the Gamblers was invalid.
- Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, a federal trial court, based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
- The court bifurcated the trial, separating the claims brought by the Lions from those brought by Sims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agent breach his fiduciary duty, rendering a contract voidable by the principal, when he negotiates a contract on the principal's behalf with a third party in which the agent has a significant, undisclosed personal and financial interest?
Opinions:
Majority - DeMascio, District Judge.
Yes. An agent breaches his fiduciary duty, rendering a contract voidable, when he engages in self-dealing by negotiating on his principal's behalf with a third party in which he holds an adverse financial interest without full and frank disclosure. The relationship between a principal and agent is fiduciary in nature, demanding duties of loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing. An agent cannot assume any relationship antagonistic to his duty, such as having a personal stake that conflicts with the principal's interest. Here, Argovitz had a substantial ownership interest in the Gamblers, creating a direct conflict. When such an adverse interest is shown, fraud is presumed, and the burden shifts to the agent to prove that the principal had full knowledge of every material fact and freely consented. Argovitz failed to meet this burden; he did not disclose the extent of his interest in the Gamblers, misrepresented the status of the Lions' negotiations, and failed to leverage the Gamblers' offer for Sims' benefit. An agent cannot hide behind a principal's instructions when those instructions are the product of the agent's own disloyal conduct. The fairness of the contract is irrelevant; the agent's self-interest is a 'vice which renders the transaction voidable at the election of the principal.' Therefore, the contract between Sims and the Gamblers must be rescinded.
Analysis:
This case serves as a quintessential example of an agent's breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, particularly the proscription against self-dealing. The court's decision reinforces the strict standard of conduct required of fiduciaries, emphasizing that an agent's loyalty must be undivided. By presuming fraud once a conflict of interest is established, the court places a heavy burden on the agent to demonstrate full disclosure and informed consent. This ruling has significant precedential value, especially in the context of sports and entertainment agency, acting as a stern warning that any transaction tainted by an agent's undisclosed conflict of interest is subject to rescission, regardless of the perceived fairness of the deal's terms.
