Contract Brief
Citation Reed v. University of North Dakota, 1999 ND 25, 589 N.W.2d 880
Facts: The defendant Reed was on the hockey team at the University of North Dakota. Part of his training regimen was to compete in a 10-kilometer race for charity. Close to 200 yards from the finish line, he collapsed from dehydration. He was then rushed to the emergency room only to be faced with a kidney transplant and two liver transplants.
Issue(s): (a) Was Reed’s oral commitment and letter of intent to play hockey at UND conditioned on an obligation by UND to provide health care?
(b) Was the release Reed signed before the race was not enforceable due to consideration.
Holding(s): (a) Reed presents no evidence that his agreement to play hockey was conditioned on an obligation by UND to provide health care. Pursuant to the Letter of Intent, UND agreed to give Reed financial aid in exchange for his agreement to play hockey. (b) Reed has again failed to identify a breach of any specific provision.
Court’s Rationale Reed has not identified a breach of a specific contractual provision despite being given the opportunity to do so through discovery. While Reed speculates that colleges have a duty to protect the health of their athletes, he fails to demonstrate how such duty is grounded in contract. Reed asserts the release is not enforceable, because it was not supported by consideration. Consideration may be any benefit conferred or detriment suffered. The forbearance of a legal right is a legal detriment which constitutes good consideration. When the hockey players, including Reed, signed the registration form, they agreed not to hold the participating sponsors responsible for any claims arising from their participation in the event and NDAD agreed to let them run on the course during NDAD's road race. Reed's surrender of a legal right in exchange for NDAD allowing him to run the course during the race constitutes consideration for the release.
Internet Location:
Facts: The defendant Reed was on the hockey team at the University of North Dakota. Part of his training regimen was to compete in a 10-kilometer race for charity. Close to 200 yards from the finish line, he collapsed from dehydration. He was then rushed to the emergency room only to be faced with a kidney transplant and two liver transplants.
Issue(s): (a) Was Reed’s oral commitment and letter of intent to play hockey at UND conditioned on an obligation by UND to provide health care?
(b) Was the release Reed signed before the race was not enforceable due to consideration.
Holding(s): (a) Reed presents no evidence that his agreement to play hockey was conditioned on an obligation by UND to provide health care. Pursuant to the Letter of Intent, UND agreed to give Reed financial aid in exchange for his agreement to play hockey. (b) Reed has again failed to identify a breach of any specific provision.
Court’s Rationale Reed has not identified a breach of a specific contractual provision despite being given the opportunity to do so through discovery. While Reed speculates that colleges have a duty to protect the health of their athletes, he fails to demonstrate how such duty is grounded in contract. Reed asserts the release is not enforceable, because it was not supported by consideration. Consideration may be any benefit conferred or detriment suffered. The forbearance of a legal right is a legal detriment which constitutes good consideration. When the hockey players, including Reed, signed the registration form, they agreed not to hold the participating sponsors responsible for any claims arising from their participation in the event and NDAD agreed to let them run on the course during NDAD's road race. Reed's surrender of a legal right in exchange for NDAD allowing him to run the course during the race constitutes consideration for the release.
Internet Location: