IN RE WORLDCOM, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Michael Jordan’s damage claim for a rejected endorsement deal was not capped as an “employment contract.” However, the court found he failed to mitigate damages because he intentionally withdrew from the endorsement market, rejecting his “lost volume seller” argument.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies the “lost volume seller” doctrine for personal services, holding that the seller must prove not only the capacity but also the subjective intent to enter into additional contracts, independent of the breach, to be excused from the duty to mitigate.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Michael Jordan entered into a ten-year endorsement agreement with WorldCom, Inc. (MCI) for an annual compensation of $2 million. In 2002, WorldCom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, in 2003, rejected the agreement with two years remaining. Jordan filed a claim for the unpaid $4 million for the final two years. WorldCom objected, arguing Jordan failed to mitigate his damages. The undisputed evidence, including testimony from Jordan’s agent and financial advisor, established that at the time of the rejection, Jordan had implemented a business strategy of not accepting new endorsements. This decision was based on a desire to avoid diluting his brand and to cultivate an image more suitable for his primary goal of becoming a majority owner of an NBA franchise. Jordan countered that he was a “lost volume seller” because he had the capacity to take on numerous endorsements simultaneously, and thus had no duty to mitigate. He argued any new deal would have been an additional opportunity, not a replacement for the lost MCI contract.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a celebrity endorser who has the capacity to perform additional contracts, but who subjectively intends to reduce their endorsement activities for unrelated business reasons, considered a “lost volume seller” excused from the duty to mitigate damages following a breach of contract?
No. Jordan was not a lost volume seller because he failed to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is a celebrity endorser who has the capacity to perform additional contracts, but who subjectively intends to reduce their endorsement activities for unrelated business reasons, considered a “lost volume seller” excused from the duty to mitigate damages following a breach of contract?
Conclusion
This case establishes a significant limitation on the lost volume seller doctrine Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe
Legal Rule
To qualify as a "lost volume seller" excused from the duty to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the requirements of the lost volume seller Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding 1: Michael Jordan was an independent contractor, not an employee,