Scott Eden Management v. Kavovit
undisclosed (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An infant's disaffirmance of a personal services contract does not allow the infant to avoid paying commissions on earnings from employment contracts procured by the manager's efforts, as the privilege of infancy cannot be used as a sword for unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- In 1984, Andrew M. Kavovit, a 12-year-old actor, and his parents entered into an exclusive personal management contract with Scott Eden Management.
- The contract provided that Scott Eden would receive a 15% commission on Kavovit's gross compensation from any performance contract entered into during the management term, for the full duration of such performance contract.
- During the management period, Scott Eden secured a multi-year, lucrative role for Kavovit on the television series 'As the World Turns,' with income commencing in 1987.
- In February 1989, one week before the management agreement was set to expire, Kavovit's attorney sent a letter to Scott Eden disaffirming the contract on the grounds of infancy.
- Following the disaffirmance, Kavovit ceased paying commissions to Scott Eden on his earnings from the 'As the World Turns' contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Eden Management sued Andrew M. Kavovit and his parents in a New York trial court.
- The complaint sought damages for past and future commissions allegedly due under the management contract.
- After the parties engaged in discovery, the defendants (the Kavovits) filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case.
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 infant's disaffirmance of a personal services contract relieve the infant of the obligation to pay commissions to the manager on earnings from performance contracts secured by the manager before the disaffirmance?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthew F. Coppola, J.
No. An infant's disaffirmance of a personal services contract does not relieve him of the obligation to pay for benefits he continues to receive from the contract. The court reasoned that the common law right of an infant to disaffirm a contract is intended to be used as a protective shield, not as a sword for unjust enrichment. Citing the principle that one who rescinds a contract cannot retain the fruits of that contract, the court found that Kavovit could not repudiate his obligation to pay commissions while continuing to benefit from the performance contract Scott Eden had secured for him. The court drew an analogy to cases like Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Prigge, where an infant was prevented from using information gained during employment in violation of an agreement. To allow Kavovit to retain 100% of the earnings would place him in a superior position than if he had never made the contract, unjustly enriching him at Scott Eden's expense and undermining the willingness of reputable managers to represent infant performers.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant equitable limitation on an infant's power to disaffirm a contract in the entertainment industry. It shifts the focus from a rigid application of the infancy doctrine to a fairness-based analysis centered on preventing unjust enrichment. The ruling treats the manager's right to commissions on a procured performance contract as a vested right, earned at the time the performance deal was signed. This precedent provides crucial protection for agents and managers who invest significant resources in developing minors' careers, ensuring they are compensated for the successful deals they secure, even if the underlying management agreement is later disaffirmed.
Unlock the full brief for Scott Eden Management v. Kavovit