In September, Knowles, the owner of a professional hockey club, began negotiations with Meyer, a professional hockey player, for Meyer’s services for the following two years. The two agreed orally to a salary of $3000 a week for Meyer during the training and playing seasons. At the time, Meyer asked whether players would be covered by workers’ compensation insurance if injured. Knowles replied that the club’s lawyer has advised that players were not covered, but that in any event he was having written contracts drawn up by the lawyer in which a clause would provide that every paler would be insured against injury and that if a player were disabled he would be looked after.

Written contracts were then prepared and presented to all the players (including Meyer) for signing. The contracts in their written form stated the agreed salary for each individual player and outlined the usual conditions regarding the player’s obligations to the club, but there was no reference to insurance protection against injury or to the employer’s obligation in the event of a player being disabled.

Meyer played for the team for 6 weeks and then received a serious eye injury to his eye during a hockey game. He was immediately taken to the hospital. At the end of the game, Knowles announced to Meyer’s teammates in the dressing room that he would pay Meyer’s salary to the end of the season.

Knowles paid Meyer’s salary to the date of his injury and refused to pay any additional sum. Meyer brought an action for damages claiming $5000 representing his salary for the remaining 15 weeks of the season; $500 for the cost of the artificial eye and general damages as compensation for the loss of his eye.

1. What are the legal issues involved in this case?

2. What arguments would each side make in this case?

Cite any relevant cases.

3. What do you believe the courts would decide? Explain your answer.

4. What are some lessons business professionals can learn from this case?