Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.

2d 360 (1981)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920

four-unit apartment building to be used for

rental income and who transmitted to football
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment player investment recommendations, after
Distinguished by United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. 
screening, was not engaged in business of
Battoo, [Link]., January 25, 2016
advising others on investment securities and
644 F.2d 360
was not required to register as an investment
United States Court of Appeals,
adviser. Investment Advisors Act of 1940, §
Seventh Circuit.
203(a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 80b-3(a).
Leo M. ZINN, Plaintiff and
9 Cases that cite this headnote
Counter-Defendant, Appellant,
v.
Lemar PARRISH, Defendant [2] Principal and Agent
Right to Compensation for Particular
and Counter-Plaintiff, Appellee.
Services
No. 80-1486. Personal agent who negotiated series
| of contracts for football player with
Argued Dec. 5, 1980. professional football team was entitled to
| recover commission pursuant to personal
Decided March 25, 1981. management contract on all amounts earned
| by player under contract, and agent's
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1981. performance or nonperformance following
cancellation of contract was irrelevant as
Synopsis player by said cancellation and breach of
In diversity action, agent sought to recover agent fees due payment excused agent from further duties.
him under personal management contract with football
player. The District Court, 461 [Link]. 11, McMillen, 4 Cases that cite this headnote
J., entered summary judgment for football player, and
agent appealed. The Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
582 F.2d 1282, reversed and remanded. Following bench
trial on remand the District Court, Northern District of Attorneys and Law Firms
Illinois, Eastern Division, James B. Moran, J., rendered
verdict for football player, and agent again appealed. The *360 Sarah L. Flosi, Ill. Inst. of Tech/Chgo. Kent College
Court of Appeals, Bartels, Senior District Judge, sitting of Law, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff and counter-defendant,
by designation, held that: (1) agent was not required appellant.
to register as an investment adviser, and (2) agent was
entitled to recover commission pursuant to personal John L. Rogers, III, Hopkins, Sutter, Mulroy, Davis
management contract. & Cromartie, Chicago, Ill., for defendant and counter-
plaintiff, appellee.
Reversed and remanded.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, SWYGERT, Circuit
Judge, and BARTELS, Senior District Judge. *

West Headnotes (2) Opinion

BARTELS, Senior District Judge.

[1] Securities Regulation
Investment Advisers This is an appeal in a diversity action by Leo Zinn from a
judgment of the District Court for the Northern District
Personal manager who furnished advice
of Illinois, Eastern Division, wherein he sought to recover
to football player on business investments,
agent fees due him under a personal management contract
assisted him in purchasing residence and

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.2d 360 (1981)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920

between him and the defendant Lemar Parrish. In an Under the 1971 contract, Zinn obligated himself to use
earlier posture of the case, Parrish prevailed against Zinn “reasonable efforts” to procure pro-football employment
on a motion for summary judgment on the ground that for Parrish, and, at Parrish's request, to “act” in
the contract was unenforceable because of Zinn's failure furtherance of Parrish's interest by: a) negotiating job
to obtain a license under the Illinois Private Employment contracts; b) furnishing advice on business investments;
Agency Act, [Link]., ch. 48, s 197a et seq. (“the c) securing professional tax advice at no added cost;
Employment Agency Act”). Zinn v. Parrish, 461 [Link]. and d) obtaining endorsement contracts. It was further
11 ([Link].1977). This court reversed and remanded, provided that Zinn's services would include, “at my
concluding that certain unresolved issues of fact precluded request efforts to secure for me gainful off-season
an award of summary judgment. 582 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir. employment,” for which Zinn would receive no additional
1978). compensation, “unless such employment (was) in the
line of endorsements, marketing and the like,” in which
On remand, the district court rendered a verdict in case Zinn would receive a 10% commission on the gross
Parrish's favor following a bench trial, on the grounds that amount. If Parrish failed to pay Zinn amounts due under
the contract was *361 void for Zinn's failure to register the contract, Parrish authorized “the club or clubs that are
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. ss obligated to pay me to pay to you instead all monies and
80b-1 et seq. (“the 1940 Act”), and that Zinn had failed other considerations due me from which you can deduct
to perform his own obligations under the contract. In your 10% and any other monies due you ....”
this appeal Parrish renews his contention, rejected by the
trial court, that the contract was unenforceable under the Over the course of Parrish's tenure with the Bengals,
Employment Agency Act. Zinn negotiated base salaries for him of $18,500 in 1971;
$27,000 in 1972; $35,000 in 1973 (plus a $6,500 signing
bonus); and a $250,000 series of contracts covering the
four seasons commencing in 1974 (plus a $30,000 signing
FACTS
bonus). The 1974-77 contracts with the Bengals were
For over two decades the appellant Zinn had been engaged signed at a time when efforts were being made by the
in the business of managing professional athletes. He newly-formed World Football League to persuade players
stated that he was a pioneer in bringing to the attention in the NFL to “jump” to the WFL to play on one
of various pro-football teams the availability of talented of its teams. By the end of 1973 season Parrish had
players at small black colleges in the South. In the become recognized as one of the more valuable players
Spring of 1970, Parrish's coach at Lincoln University in the NFL. He was twice selected for the Pro Bowl
approached Zinn and informed him that Parrish had been game, and named by Sporting News as one of the best
picked by the Cincinnati Bengals in the annual National cornerbacks in the league. Towards the end of the 1973
Football League draft of college seniors, and asked him season, the Bengals approached Parrish with an offer of
better contract terms than he had earlier been receiving.
if he would help Parrish in negotiating the contract. 1
By way of exploring alternatives in the WFL, Zinn entered
After Zinn contacted Parrish, the latter signed a one-year
into preliminary discussions with the Jacksonville Sharks
“Professional Management Contract” with Zinn in the
in early 1974, but decided not to pursue the matter once
Spring of 1970, pursuant to which Zinn helped Parrish
he ascertained that the Sharks were in a shaky financial
negotiate the terms of his rookie contract with the Bengals,
position. In retrospect, Zinn's and Parrish's decision to
receiving as his commission 10% of Parrish's $16,500
continue negotiating and finally sign with the Bengals
salary. On April 10, 1971 Parrish signed the contract at
*362 was a sound one, for the Sharks and the rest of the
issue in this case, which differed from the 1970 contract
WFL with them folded in 1975 due to a lack of funds.
only insofar as it was automatically renewed from year
to year unless one of the parties terminated it by 30
Shortly after signing the 1974 series of contracts, Parrish
days' written notice to the other party. There were no
informed Zinn by telephone that he “no longer needed
other restrictions placed on the power of either party to
his services.” By letter dated October 16, 1975 Parrish
terminate the contract.
reiterated this position, and added that he had no
intention of paying Zinn a 10% commission on those

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.2d 360 (1981)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920

contracts. In view of its disposition of the case, the

district court made no specific fact finding as to the
amounts Parrish earned during the 1974-77 seasons. Zinn
DISCUSSION
claims that the total was at least $304,500 including
bonus and performance clauses. The 1971 contract by its
terms entitled Zinn to 10% of the total amount as each I
installment was paid, and Zinn claims that he has only
We turn, first, to the district court's decision that Zinn's
received $4,300 of the amounts due him. Accordingly, this
contract was void under the 1940 Act. The Act makes
suit was filed to recover the balance, plus interest at the
void any contract for investment advice made by an
rate of 5% per annum for vexatious delay in payment,
unregistered adviser. 15 U.S.C. s 80b-15(b). The issue thus
pursuant to [Link]., ch. 74, s 2.
presented is whether Zinn was engaged by reason of the
terms of his contract and all his activities thereunder in the
In addition to negotiating the Bengals contracts, Zinn
business of advising others as to security transactions. If
performed a number of other services at Parrish's request.
so, he was required to register as an investment adviser. 15
In 1972 he assisted him in purchasing a residence as
U.S.C. s 80b-3(a). An investment adviser is defined under
well as a four-unit apartment building to be used for
the Act as:
rental income; he also helped to manage the apartment
building. That same year Zinn negotiated an endorsement any person who, for compensation,
contract for Parrish with All-Pro Graphics, Inc., under engages in the business of advising
which Parrish received a percentage from the sales of others, either directly or through
“Lemar Parrish” t-shirts, sweat-shirts, beach towels, key publications or writings, as to
chains, etc. The record shows that Zinn made a number the value of securities or as to
of unsuccessful efforts at obtaining similar endorsement the advisability of investing in,
income from stores with which Parrish did business purchasing, or selling securities, or
in Ohio. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain an who, for compensation and as a
appearance for Parrish on the Mike Douglas Show. Zinn part of a regular business, issues
arranged for Parrish's taxes to be prepared each year by or promulgates analyses or reports
H & R Block. 2 concerning securities.

The evidence showed that, despite his efforts, Zinn was 15 U.S.C. s 80b-2(a)(11).
unable to obtain off-season employment for Parrish. In
this connection, however, it was Zinn's advice to Parrish *363 The district court held that Zinn fell within
that he return to school during the off-season months the definitional requirements of the Act and was an
in order to finish his college degree, against the time investment adviser because: 1) the 1971 Management
when he would no longer be able to play football. Contract stated that Zinn would provide advice on
With respect to Zinn's obligation to provide Parrish “business investments,” and Zinn let others know by
with advice on “business investments,” he complied word of mouth that he was available as a personal
first, by assisting in the purchase of the apartment manager, he was “holding himself out” to the public
building; and second, by forwarding to Parrish the stock as an investment adviser; 2) Zinn “solicited the advice
purchase recommendations of certain other individuals, of others and transmitted to (Parrish) those investment
after screening the suggestions himself. There was no recommendations, after screening by (Zinn)”; and 3) Zinn
evidence that Zinn ever forwarded such recommendations “accepted and invested funds sent to him” by Parrish
to any of his other clients; he testified that he only did so for investment purposes. The court's conclusion, however,
for Parrish. In summing up Zinn's performance under the does not follow from its premises.
contract, Parrish testified as follows:
The 1940 Act was enacted as Title II of comprehensive
Q: Did you ever ask Zinn to do anything for you, to regulations covering both investment companies and
your knowledge, that he didn't try to do? investment advisers. It was “the last in a series of Acts
designed to eliminate certain abuses in the securities
A: I shall say not, no.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.2d 360 (1981)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920

industry, abuses which were found to have contributed on First United Management Corp., (1973-74 Transfer
to the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression Binder) [Link]. (CCH) P 79,742, which is in fact
of the 1930's.” SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, inapposite. There the SEC ruled that “the offer of ...
Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 186, 84 [Link]. 275, 280, 11 [Link].2d limited partnerships (in real estate) by First United to
237 (1963). As a remedial statute, it must be read broadly its (professional athlete) clients would constitute *364
in order to effectuate its purpose of “protect(ing) the investment advice.” Id. at p. 83,984. Zinn made no
public and investors against malpractices by persons paid offer to Parrish of a limited partnership interest in real
for advising others about securities.” SEC v. Wall Street estate, for in fact Parrish was the sole owner of the
Transcript Corp., 422 F.2d 1371, 1376 (2d Cir.), cert. apartment building. Another factor which influenced the
denied, 398 U.S. 958, 90 [Link]. 2170, 26 [Link].2d 542 (1970), district court in reaching its conclusion that Zinn was an
quoting (1960) [Link] Cong. & [Link] 3503. At investment adviser was Parrish's testimony that he had
the same time, the definitional requirements of the statute sent Zinn about $1500 “to invest ... in his company,” in
must be interpreted so as not to sweep in persons whose return for which he was to receive “something like 20
activities Congress did not intend to regulate on the theory percent” on his investment. He later asked for his money
that they posed no national concern. back, received a part of it, and applied the balance against
fees due Zinn. In finding that Zinn “accepted and invested
Among the factors the SEC looks to in determining funds sent to him” by Parrish for investment, the district
whether someone “holds himself out” as an investment court apparently was referring to these transactions,
adviser are: “(t)he maintenance of a listing as an which in our view did not constitute advice to purchase
investment adviser in a telephone or business directory”; a security in the form of an investment contract. United
“the expression of willingness to existing clients or Housing, 421 U.S. at 852, 95 [Link]. at 2060.
others to accept new clients”; or “the use of a
letterhead indicating any activity as an investment [1] It is true that Zinn might have been compelled to
adviser.” In re Frank T. Hines, (1972-73 Transfer register as an investment adviser, even if he limited his
Binder) [Link]. (CCH) P 78,963 at p. 82,074; activities to screening the securities recommendations of
accord, DJZ Assoc. Investments Mgt., (1975-76 Transfer others before passing them along to clients, SEC v. Wall
Binder) [Link]. (CCH) P 80,384. The evidence Street Transcript Corp., 454 [Link]. 559 (S.D.N.Y.1978),
showed that Zinn's listing in his office building directory if he made a business of such activities. But isolated
was “Public Relations Consultant.” His ad in the transactions with a client as an incident to the main
Chicago Yellow Pages was under the heading of purpose of his management contract to negotiate football
“Public Relations.” His letterhead did not contain the contracts do not constitute engaging in the business of
phrase “investment adviser” but only “Public Relations advising others on investment securities. See, e. g., de
Consultant.” The testimony showing that Zinn was, by Bruin v. Andromeda Broadcasting Systems, 465 [Link].
word of mouth, available as a personal manager for both 1276, 1279 ([Link].1979). From the evidence, Parrish was
employment and business advice was not evidence that the only one of his personal management clients to whom
Zinn was available as an investment adviser. he transmitted securities recommendations from others.

The court failed to distinguish between ordinary business Zinn was not a dealer or trader in securities and there
advice and advice on securities. 3 For example, Parrish was no evidence to indicate that he was financially
purchased his own home and also an interest in an interested in the securities recommendations he passed
apartment building with the assistance of Zinn's advice, along. Therefore the conflict of interest at which the
but this was not investment advice within the terms of the Act was aimed was not present here. SEC v. Capital
1940 Act. Zinn was not engaged in a “common venture” Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. at 191-92, 84 [Link]. at
with Parrish simply because he engaged in certain 282-283. In substance, his position was similar to that
managerial tasks at Parrish's request with respect to the of a professional trustee whose advice to his clients on
apartment building. See United Housing Foundation, Inc. securities is “solely incidental to his duty as a professional
v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 852, 95 [Link]. 2051, 2060, 44 trustee.” In re Augustus P. Loring, Jr., 11 SEC 885,
[Link].2d 621 (1975) (definition of an investment contract). 886-87, 41-45 Dec. P 75,299 (1942). In the Loring case
Both Parrish and the district court relied too heavily the SEC further concluded that the trustee was not an

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.2d 360 (1981)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920

investment adviser because he did not “hold himself out as or World Football League, Parrish's only sensible course
being engaged in the business of giving advice to others as of action throughout the time Zinn managed him was to
to securities.” We note that here as well, the district court negotiate with the Bengals.
found as a fact that Zinn “did not provide substantial
investment advice” a finding in derogation of its final Parrish had no objection to Zinn's performance under
conclusion. Neither the execution of the management the professional management contract for the first three
contract by Zinn nor his conduct thereunder made him years up to 1973, during which time Zinn negotiated
an investment adviser. Accordingly, we need not reach football contracts for Parrish. A drastic change, however,
the question whether Zinn's conduct fell within the “de took place in 1974 when a four-season contract was
minimus” exception to the registration requirements of the negotiated with the Bengals for a total of $250,000 plus
1940 Act. See 15 U.S.C. s 80b-3(b)(3). 4 a substantial signing bonus. At that time, the new World
Football League came into existence and its teams, as
well as the teams of the Canadian Football League, were
offering good terms to professional football players as an
II inducement to jump over to their leagues from the NFL.
In order to persuade Parrish to remain with the team,
We consider next the district court's judgment that
the Bengals club itself first initiated the renegotiation of
Zinn failed to perform the terms and conditions of his
Parrish's contract with an offer of substantially increased
contract. 5 Upon this issue, the district court made the compensation. This was not surprising.
following findings:
Parrish claims, however, that Zinn should have obtained
offers from the World Football League that would have
The evidence was clear that (Zinn) did not, in fact,
placed him in a stronger negotiating position with the
procure employment for (Parrish), did not obtain off-
Bengals. This is a rather late claim. It was not mentioned in
season employment for (Parrish), did not provide *365
Parrish's letter of termination, and is entirely speculative.
substantial investment advice, did not secure any more
Given what Zinn accurately perceived as the unreliability
than the most superficial tax consultation and did not
of any offers he might have obtained from the WFL, his
seek in any substantial respect endorsement contracts
representation of Parrish during this period was more than
and other profitable marketing connections.
From these findings the court concluded that Zinn “was reasonable. 8 As the district court properly noted, prior
unable to and did not provide the services which he was to the signing of the 1974-77 series of football contracts
obligated to provide by the contract under which he the needs of the defendant, the services of the plaintiff,
sues.” We address the findings seriatim. and the fees paid by the defendant for those services were
all “relatively modest.” We conclude that up to that point
Employment Procurement it is impossible to fault Zinn in the performance of his
Zinn's obligation under the 1971 Management Contract contract, nor can we find any basis for Parrish to complain
to procure employment for Parrish as a profootball player of *366 Zinn's efforts in 1974 with respect to procuring
was limited to the use of “reasonable efforts.” 6 At the employment for him as a pro-football player.
time the contract was signed, Parrish was already under
contract with the Cincinnati Bengals for the 1970-71
Other Obligations
season, with a one-year option clause for the 1971-72
We focus next on the other obligations, all incidental to
season exercisable by the Bengals. Parrish could not,
the main purpose of the contract. The first of these refers
without being in breach of his Bengals contract, enter into
to “(n)egotiating employment contracts with professional
negotiations with other teams for the 1971-72 season. The
athletic organizations and others.” Unless this is with
NFL's own rules prevented one team from negotiating
respect to a professional football contract, it is difficult to
with another team's player who had not yet attained the
understand to what “professional athletic organizations
status of a “free agent”. 7 At no time relevant to this and others” refers. At all events, there is no claim that
litigation did Parrish become a free agent. Thus, unless there was a failure to negotiate employment contracts
he decided to contract for future services for the year with other athletic organizations. And the evidence
following the term of the option clause with the Canadian

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.2d 360 (1981)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920

clearly shows that Zinn performed substantial services in for him before letting Zinn know over the phone that his
services were no longer required. That call, coupled with
negotiating with the Bengals by letter, telephone, and in
Parrish's failure to make the 10% commission payments
person when he and Parrish were flown at the Bengals'
as they came due, was a breach of the 1971 contract.
expense to Cincinnati for the final stage of negotiations on
Watson v. Auburn Iron Works, Inc., 23 [Link].3d 265,
the 1974-77 series of contracts.
318 N.E.2d 508, 511 (1974). The district court was in error
in considering Zinn's performance or non-performance
Zinn was further obligated to act in Parrish's professional
during the period following that call, for Parrish by
interest by providing advice on tax and business
his own breach excused Zinn from any further duties
matters, by “seek(ing) ... endorsement contracts,” and
under the contract. Olsen v. Scholl, 38 [Link].3d 340,
by making “efforts” to obtain for Parrish gainful off-
347 N.E.2d 195, 198 (1976). Zinn had no obligations
season employment. Each of these obligations was subject
thereafter, and Parrish was estopped from asserting
to an implied promise to make “good faith” efforts to
Zinn's non-performance as a defense to the suit on the
obtain what he sought. See, e. g., Bonner v. Westbound
commission fees due him. Gamm Construction Co. v.
Records, Inc., 76 [Link].3d 736, 31 [Link]. 926, 394
Townsend, 32 [Link].3d 848, 336 N.E.2d 592, 594 (1975).
N.E.2d 1303 (1979); Van C. Argiris Co. v. Caine Steel
Therefore Zinn has a right to recover a 10% commission
Co., 20 [Link].3d 315, 314 N.E.2d 361, 366 (1974). Under
on all amounts earned by Parrish under the 1974, 1975,
Illinois law, such efforts constitute full performance of the
1976, and 1977 Bengals contracts.
obligations. Id. Until Parrish terminated the contract, the
evidence was clear that Zinn made consistent, good faith
We must disagree with the district court's interpretation
efforts to obtain off-season employment and endorsement
of the terms of the contract, and Zinn's obligations
contracts. Indeed the district court found that Zinn at all
thereunder, and also with its findings and conclusions
times acted in good faith, with a willingness “to provide
concerning Zinn's performance. Insofar as the district
assistance within his ability.” The district court confused
court made any findings of fact which are inconsistent
success with good faith efforts in concluding that Zinn's
with the foregoing, we find them to be clearly erroneous.
failure to obtain in many cases jobs or contracts for
Consequently, judgment should be entered for Zinn. The
Parrish was a failure to perform. Moreover, Zinn did give
decision of the district court is REVERSED, and the case
business advice to Parrish on his real estate purchases, and
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with
he did secure tax advice for him.
this opinion, including the calculation of damages and
interest, if any, due Zinn.
[2] Parrish fully accepted Zinn's performance for the
years 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973 by remitting the 10%
due Zinn under the contract. Parrish was at all times All Citations
free to discharge Zinn as his agent before a new season
began. Instead, he waited until Zinn had negotiated a 644 F.2d 360, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920
series of contracts worth a quarter of a million dollars

Footnotes
* The Honorable John R. Bartels, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by
designation.
1 Under the draft process as it existed in 1970, once a player was selected by any given team, no other team could negotiate
with or sign that player. If he was unable to reach a satisfactory accord with the team that had picked him, he could not
play in the NFL. See generally Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., 593 F.2d 1173 ([Link]. 1978) (concluding that the NFL draft
violated the Sherman Act).
2 Once Zinn secured the services of H & R Block for Parrish, his obligation ended. Parrish's contention on appeal that Zinn
was at fault for a dispute he later had with the IRS requiring the payment of additional taxes is unfounded.
3 It is crucial to note that nothing in Zinn's contract obligated him to provide advice on securities investments, as that term
is defined in 15 U.S.C. s 80b-2(a)(18). The Securities Acts were not designed to provide a remedy for every instance of
a breach of common-law fiduciary duties. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 478, 97 [Link]. 1292, 1303,

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6

Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.2d 360 (1981)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,920

51 [Link].2d 480 (1977). The district court was in error in concluding that Congress by enacting the 1940 Act “intended
to regulate” the relationship between an athlete and his manager.
4 That section provides that the registration requirements of the 1940 Act shall not apply to:
(3) any investment adviser who during the course of the preceding twelve months has had fewer than fifteen clients
and who neither holds himself out generally to the public as an investment adviser nor acts as an investment adviser
to any investment company registered under (the Investment Companies Act of 1940).
5 The terms of the 1971 contract provided that Illinois would be the “situs” of the contract, and the parties proceeded on
the assumption that Illinois law governs its interpretation. Since neither party has objected to the application of Illinois
law, we conclude that the parties have consented thereto.
6 Parrish contended that Zinn's obligation to procure employment made him a private employment agency under Illinois
law. The district court concluded that Zinn's business was not within the scope of the Illinois regulations, since he was
not involved in providing “placement services to the general public.” We agree. See National Talent Associates, Inc. v.
Holland, 76 [Link].3d 556, 32 [Link]. 195, 395 N.E.2d 142 (1979).
7 A player can become a free agent by: 1) not being drafted during the Spring college draft; 2) being placed on waivers
after signing with a particular team; or 3) playing out his option year with his club.
8 Had Zinn obtained for Parrish a contract with a WFL team for the season following the option year, with an acceleration
clause making the contract effective a year earlier should the option not be exercised, he might have embroiled Parrish in
costly litigation. See, e. g., Cincinnati Bengals v. Bergey, 453 [Link]. 129 ([Link] 1974); Bowman v. National Football
League, 402 [Link]. 754 ([Link].1975).

End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7