WEEK 4: JOHN TONELLI CASE STUDY

This case's facts summarize that John Tonelli was 16 years old when he entered into a two-year
contract with Toronto Marlboros Major Junior-A Hockey club. Later on, John and other junior
hockey players were forced to sign a new contract to continue to play in the junior hockey
league. The new contract imposed monetary penalties if John signed for a professional team
within the time. The contract also bound John to play for the team for more years, and it was
three more years longer than his initial contract. John was later sued by Toronto Marlboros for
breach of contract when he later signed for a professional team.
The legal issues surrounding this case is that John was a minor when he signed the contract.
Hence, one can argue that the contract between John and the Toronto Marlboros is not legally
binding. The general rule between contacts signed by adults and minors is that the contract is
legally binding on the adult, but not the minor, including when the minor reaches the age of
majority. However, if the minor reaches the age of majority, they confirm the promise they made
as a minor or act consistently with the terms of the contract, it may become binding. However,
there are some notable exceptions to this rule. Some contracts that minors enter into can be
enforceable if they involve life necessities or are beneficial for the child. According to section 3
of the Sale of Goods Act, 1990, "Necessaries" are things that a person cannot reasonably exist
without, including food, clothing, lodging, education or training in a trade, and essential services.
Also, minors can enter into an employment contract where they are exchanging their services for
compensation, provided that the contract, taken as a whole, is beneficial to the minor for the
entire duration of the contract. In this case, John Tonelli entered into a contract with Toronto
Marlboros for beneficial services. However, the contract states that John would have to pay
monetary penalties if he signed for a professional team and the new contract is three years longer
than the initial contract, making the contract signed by John exploitative instead of beneficial.
Therefore, the contract is unenforceable against John because the contract was exploitative. The
contract was no longer beneficial to Tonelli once he got the chance to play for a professional
team.
References

Sale of Goods Act, RSO 1990. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90s013

DuPlessis, D., O'Byrne, S., King, P., Adams, L., & Enman, S. (2014). Canadian business and the
law. Nelson Education.