This paper presents a legal brief addressed to the New York Court of Appeals arguing that the appellate court's decision to reject summary judgment in favor of Golden Gate Yacht Club (GGYC) should be affirmed. The analysis examines whether a contract was formed between GGYC and African Diaspora Maritime Corporation (ADM) in the context of the America's Cup Defender Candidate application process. Drawing on hornbook contract law and the majority and dissenting opinions in the underlying case, the paper argues that GGYC's Protocol constituted a contest offer, that ADM accepted it through its application and $25,000 fee, and that an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing arose — making breach a factual question unsuitable for summary judgment resolution.
The central question before the New York Court of Appeals is whether the court should affirm the appellate court's decision and reject summary judgment in favor of Golden Gate Yacht Club (GGYC). Answering this overriding question requires examining whether the parties entered into a contract; however, the question of whether that contract was breached is a factual issue that should be resolved at trial, not through the summary judgment process.
There are four issues related to whether the parties' actions formed a contract. First, is the Protocol an offer, or instead a solicitation for an offer? If the Protocol is an offer, what are its terms, and how does it evidence an intent by GGYC to be bound? If the Protocol is an offer, how can it be accepted, and has African Diaspora Maritime Corporation (ADM) accepted it? What is the consideration in the contract alleged by ADM? Finally, if the Protocol is an offer that ADM accepted by its application, does GGYC have complete discretion to reject a Defender Candidate application?
While GGYC argues that the language of the Protocol does not constitute a binding offer, ADM insists that the rules of a contest constitute a contract offer and that a participant's entry into the contest constitutes an acceptance of that offer.
The America's Cup is clearly a contest, as it is a sporting event pitting one boat against another. That fact does not necessarily mean that GGYC's invitation for applications is itself a contest. However, when one considers that the different applicants are being asked to apply for an opportunity to race against one another in order to qualify to race in the America's Cup, it becomes clear that it is a contest. The majority opinion of the appellate court, written by Judge Acosta, determined that ADM did state a breach of contract claim, interpreting the rules of offer and acceptance not as they would apply in a standard business scenario, but as they would apply in the context of a contest.
As the court recognized: "It is hornbook law that the rules of a contest constitute a contract offer and that the participant's [entry into] the contest 'constitute[s] an acceptance of that offer, including all of its terms and conditions.'"
In other words, a contest is not governed by the same offer-and-acceptance rules that one would apply to judge the existence of a contract in other circumstances. To reach this conclusion, the court relied heavily on the decision in Sargent v. N.Y. Daily News, L.P., 42 A.D.3d 491 (2d Dep't 2007).
Moreover, because Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol were explicit, definite, and certain in their details for how to apply to become a Defender Candidate, the Protocol constituted an offer. ADM accepted that offer by tendering its application. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that ADM used the exact language in its application that GGYC had specified in the Protocol.
Therefore, there was not only an offer by GGYC but also an acceptance by ADM. Combined with consideration — transmitted in the form of a $25,000 application fee — all of the requisite elements of contract formation were present: offer, acceptance, and consideration.
In his dissent, Justice Tom states: "Dispositive of the question of contract formation in general is whether indeed an offer has been made. If so, whether the offer invites acceptance by the means used; and whether all conditions required for a valid acceptance have been fulfilled." Justice Tom takes the position that the Protocol is merely extending an invitation for applications.
"Argues fee triggers a good-faith duty in GGYC"
"Examines how implied covenant constrains GGYC discretion"
The court should affirm the appellate court's decision and reject summary judgment in favor of GYYC, because there is evidence that a contract was formed. Whether the contract was breached is a factual issue that should be resolved at trial, not through the summary judgment process.
You’re 33% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.