Contracts With Minors in Sport

In Contract Law class, we discussed the characteristics of a valid contract. One of the characteristics a contract must have to be valid is the parties both need to be the age of majority. The age of majority varies from province to province in Canada, and it is therefore important to refer to your province’s legislation to see how old you must be to enter into contractual agreements. A minor may only enter into a contract for necessities of life, or anything which may of benefit to them. 

In Ontario, the age of majority is 18 years of age. We learned in class a contract cannot be enforced against a minor but a minor can enforce a contract. In other words, if someone under the age of 18 were to enter a contractual agreement, it becomes voidable, although the decision to continue the contract is up to the minor. If the minor decides to void the contract, it becomes rescinded - the unmaking of a contract. A contract may only be enforceable against a minor if it is for their own benefit. 

In class, we also went into further detail discussing what would happen to a minor’s contract once they reach the age of majority. Once a minor reaches the age of majority, they are allowed to ratify their contract. If the contract is for necessities, it continues.

An example of a sport case scenario we examined in class was the Toronto Marlboro Major Junior “A” Hockey Club et al. v. Tonelli case. At the age of 17, Tonelli entered into a contract with the Toronto Marlboros - an major junior hockey club - for three years, with a fourth year option for the Marlboros. Tonelli agreed to play for minimal payment, and to pay the Marlboros 20% of his salary for his first three years as a professional hockey player. The contract also contained a clause stating the Marlboros were the only party who could terminate the deal. Once Tonelli turned 18, he repudiated his contract with the Marlboros, and agreed to play professional hockey for the Houston Aeros of the World Hockey Association. The Marlboros sued Tonelli, his agent, and the World Hockey Association for breaching the contract. Since the contract was highly favourable for the Marlboros, and not very beneficial to Tonelli, the court ordered the contract voidable. Therefore, Tonelli had a choice to discontinue the contract, or to continue fulfilling it. The Toronto Marlboros had the responsibility of making the contract beneficial for Tonelli which they failed to do.