At age 16, Smith was a promising young hockey player. He was drafted by the Fredericton Firebirds to play for their club, a junior team one step below the professional league. One year into the contract, the Firebirds terminated the contract and required all of their players to sign new four-year contracts. Smith was to receive $250 weekly, along with room and board and the flexibility to complete his high school studies. In return, Smith agreed to play only for Fredericton and gave them the right to trade him to any other team or terminate the contract at any time. On his 18^th birthday, Smith visited the general manager of the Firebirds, and repudiated his contract. Smith had received offers from the professional league, which promised him far greater instruction with superior coaching, as well as $200,000 per season. Smith felt that an early jump on a professional career was vital to him, considering the early retirement age of most hockey players. The general manager was upset with Smith and vowed to bring a suit against him if he signed with the professional league to set an example for the other players. Smith signed the contract with the professional team, and the general manager brought suit against him.
Discuss the contractual issues raised in this case, and discuss in particular the issues of capacity, enforceability, and repudiation that bear in this instance. What aspects would a judge take into account in rendering a decision and why?

Smith's contract, signed when he was an infant, falls into the category of contracts of service, which are only enforceable if the contract was for the benefit of the infant at the time it was made. Students will no doubt argue that the contract was beneficial to Smith since experience in the junior leagues is the only avenue to a career in professional hockey. It would be further argued by the general manager that the Firebirds were taking a chance on Smith, giving him the benefits of instruction and exposure to the scouts of the professional league.
On the other hand, students have been presented with good reasons why the contract under its current formulation is disadvantageous to Smith, as it reduces his potential playing time as a professional, and the level of his achievable professional income. The text is quite right but emphasizes that beneficial contracts of service are enforceable against minors, so there is indeed basis for a student to conclude that Smith is bound by the contract. The courts do look to the long-term nature of the benefit conferred upon the minor and if the contract is in fact in the long term prejudicial, it will be held unenforceable against the minor. Since Smith's repudiation is timely and he has not ratified the contract he is quite likely to be excused from its performance. This case is based upon the case of the professional hockey player John Tonelli, who for these reasons of long-term benefit, was allowed to repudiate his contract with the Toronto Marlboro Junior A Hockey Club.
Citation: Toronto Marlboro Major Junior A Hockey Club v. Tonelli (1979), 23 O.R. (2d) 193.