Summary
This document contains findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial in a dispute over boxing promotional agreements involving Andy Cruz Gomez, New Champion Promotions LLC, and Matchroom Boxing USA LLC. The court concluded that the NCP promotional agreement was invalid and unenforceable because essential terms, including compensation, were unspecified, while the Matchroom agreement remained valid as between Gomez and Matchroom. The court held that New Champion Promotions may pursue quantum meruit damages, which will require a future jury trial.
Holdings
- The NCP Promotional Agreement was not a valid or enforceable contract because the parties did not mutually assent to material terms, including the agreement's essential purpose and New Champion Promotions' compensation, and the agreement lacked sufficient consideration.
- The parties mutually assented to New Champion Promotions acting as an intermediary to find and negotiate an agreement with a major boxing promoter for Cruz's benefit, even though they did not agree on the amount or source of compensation.
- New Champion Promotions was entitled to recover quantum meruit damages for the reasonable value of its services in securing Matchroom's promotional agreement for Cruz, with the amount to be determined by a jury.
- Because the NCP Promotional Agreement was invalid, New Champion Promotions had no promoter rights for Cruz under the Boxing Promotional Agreement, except for the right to seek quantum meruit compensation; Cruz retained his rights and obligations under the Boxing Promotional Agreement.
Questions Presented
- Whether the NCP Promotional Agreement was a valid and enforceable contract under Florida law despite failing to specify the agreement's essential purpose and New Champion Promotions' compensation.
- Whether the parties mutually assented to New Champion Promotions acting as an intermediary to secure a major boxing promoter for Cruz.
- Whether New Champion Promotions was entitled to quantum meruit compensation for securing Matchroom's promotional agreement for Cruz.
- Whether New Champion Promotions retained promoter rights under the Boxing Promotional Agreement after the NCP Promotional Agreement was found invalid.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Kolodziej v. Mason, 774 F.3d 736, 740 (11th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Holloway v. Gutman, 707 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)(followed)
- Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 54 So. 92, 93 (Fla. 1910)(followed)
- F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Assocs. LLC v. B&B Site Dev., Inc., 311 So. 3d 39, 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)(followed)
- W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 305 (Fla. 1999)(followed)
- Tipper v. Great Lakes Chem. Co., 281 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla. 1973)(followed)
- Commerce P'ship 8098 Ltd. P'ship v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383, 385 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)(followed)
- Daake v. Decks N Such Marine, Inc., 201 So. 3d 179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)(followed)
- Solutec Corp. v. Young & Lawrence Assocs., 243 So. 2d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…