Speakers of Sport, Inc. v.

ProServe, Inc
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
178 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 1999)

Key Search Terms: puffing, tort of Interference with Business

Relationships, fraud, deceptive practices, unfair competition

Facts
Speakers of Sport (Speakers), the plaintiff, signed Ivan Rodriguez in 1991 to a
terminable at will contract making Speakers his agent. ProServ, a competing
sports agency, promised Rodriquez that they would find him endorsement
contracts worth two (2) to four (4) million dollars if he decided to terminate his
contract with Speakers and sign with ProServ. Rodriquez signed with ProServ
and did not receive any significant endorsement contracts. Speakers filed suit
claiming that ProServ fraudulently interfered with Rodriguez’s contract with
Speakers.

Issue
Did ProServ tortiously interfered with a business relationship when it promised
endorsement money to a competitors’ client? And, did ProServ’s actions violate
the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act?

Holding
The court ruled that sports agents should be allowed to try to take client from
competitors without incurring liability. The court reasoned that competition is
not a tort, instead it provides a defense to the tort of improper interference.
The court reasoned that sports agents do not “own” clients who are signed to a
contract that is terminable at will. The court viewed ProServ’s promise to
Rodriquez as puffing, which the court defined as “pure fantasy” and gross
exaggeration.” The court reasoned that the only reasonable meaning to attach
to ProServ’s promise was that ProServ would make its best effort to find
Rodriguez the highest amount of endorsement money as possible. The court
held that ProServ’s promise could not be the basis for fraud there was no
evidence of a scheme to defraud. Therefore, the court concluded that Speakers
claim for tortious interference with a business relationship failed. As to the
second issue, competitors, who bring suit under the Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, must produce clear and convincing evidence
that the alleged conduct created consumer protection concerns. The court
reasoned that Rodriquez was the only consumer involved in Speakers’
allegations, and he did not claim that he had been harmed in any way. The
court held that ProServ’s did not engage in an unfair method of competition.
The court supported this conclusion by citing a provision of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, stating the Act is designed to protect consumers from
deceptive practices but not to protect competitors from competition.
Summarized by: Reid Murtaugh