Arena Football League and Arena Football One, LLC v. Bryon Bishop
220 So. 3d 1243
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Bryon Bishop, a former Arena Football League (AFL) player, attended a two-day Predators tryout; he was injured on the second day and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- Bishop signed a Standard Player Contract stating the League hires the player for Feb 1–Aug 31, 2013; the contract contained signature lines for Player, Team Rep., and League.
- Bishop signed the Player line; the Predators’ team representative signed the Team Rep. line; the League signature line remained blank.
- The judge of compensation claims (JCC) found Bishop was under contract with the AFL at the time of injury and awarded benefits; the AFL appealed.
- Central legal question: whether the unsigned League signature (and related conduct) established a mutually binding contract making Bishop an AFL employee entitled to workers’ compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Bishop's Argument | AFL's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding employment contract existed despite no League signature | The Contract language and the AFL’s allowing Bishop to try out show assent; the Contract’s post-execution disapproval mechanism implies approval if unused | No mutual assent: the form required League signature; absence of League signature means no executed contract and no employer-employee relationship | Court held no binding contract; absence of League signature and no other clear assent means no employer-employee relationship at injury |
| Whether the Contract’s automatic approval/disapproval provisions converted an unsigned contract into an executed one | Because AFL did not disapprove within seven days, the Contract should be considered approved and binding | Those provisions only operate after execution; they cannot supply mutual assent where execution never occurred | Court held disapproval/automatic-approval clauses irrelevant if contract was never executed |
| Whether allowing participation in the tryout evidences League assent to hire for the season | Participation shows AFL accepted the Contract terms and hired Bishop | Allowing tryout participation is insufficient to prove hiring for the season or mutual assent to the Contract terms | Court held tryout participation insufficient to show League assent to hire for the season |
| Whether mutual assent can be established by conduct instead of signatures | Bishop argued conduct (tryout allowance) can substitute for signature-based mutuality | AFL argued no conduct here manifested assent to the specific Contract terms | Court held signatures or other clear manifestations of mutual assent are required; conduct here did not show assent |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenks v. Bynum Transp., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (workers’ compensation entitlement may exist absent formal written contract in some contexts)
- BOLD MLP, LLC v. Smith, 201 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (de novo review applies where decision rests on legal interpretation)
- Bend v. Shamrock Servs., 59 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (JCCs may be required to interpret contracts to determine coverage)
- D.L. Peoples Grp., Inc. v. Hawley, 804 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (signature by both contracting parties generally required to create binding contract)
- Gibson v. Courtois, 539 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1989) (mutual assent is essential to contract formation)
- Gateway Cable T.V., Inc. v. Vikoa Constr. Corp., 253 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (assent can be shown by acts or conduct where appropriate)