despite the lucrative nature of the agreement although the Clancy/King partnership
continued to operate. Clancy’s only participation in the agreement was the use of his
name and no labor or other duties were required of him. King sued claiming a lack of
good faith and the court decided:
A.the partnership’s clause allowing competition by a partner with the partnership
violated common law principles and could not be enforced so Clancy could opt out of
the illegal contract and King had no case.
B.the partnership’s clause allowing competition by a partner with the partnership
violated RUPA standards and principles and could not be enforced so Clancy could opt
out of the illegal contract and King had no case.
C.the partnership agreement clause allowing individual competition was enforceable
and preempted the duty to act in good faith so Clancy could add or withdraw his name
pursuant to the contract without liability.
D.the duty to act in good faith was not negated by the clause permitting competition so
because Clancy withdrew his name solely to spite and injure his ex-wife he is liable to
her and may not withdraw his name from the contract.
In American Needle Inc. v. National Football League, the NFL had entered into an
agreement with Reebok to manufacture all of its teams’ official goods and claimed that
all 32 teams were a single-entity. American Needle sued claiming that the Reebok
agreement was an illegal conspiracy under the Sherman Act. The U.S. Supreme Court
found that:
A.the 32 teams were a collective unit and not subject to the Sherman Act.
B.the 32 teams were not a collective unit and were subject to the Sherman Act.
C.the 32 teams were not a collective unit but were exempt from the Sherman Act
because of the economic environment of sports.
D.there was no Sherman Act violation.