What rule did the court apply?

There is no liability for inducing breach of a voidable contract with a minor. If a contract is determinable, inducing a lawful termination is not a breach.

Why was Proactive not liable?

Because there was no enforceable contract that the minor was bound to keep; the contract could be lawfully determined, so no breach was procured.

What is the quick exam takeaway?

No tort of inducing breach when the underlying contract is voidable by a minor or terminable as of right.

proform-v-proactive-inducing-breach-minor-contract

Q: What was the main issue in Proform v. Proactive?

Whether Proactive was liable for inducing a breach of Proform’s representation contract with Wayne Rooney, who was a minor when it was signed.

Q: Was the Proform–Rooney agreement enforceable against him?

No. It was not a contract of necessity or akin to employment/education. It was voidable at the minor’s option.

Proform v. Proactive (Inducing Breach & Minor’s Contract)

Contract/Tort High Court (E&W) 2007 Citation: [2007] 1 All ER 542 Bench: High Court Reading time: ~4–5 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | India | Published on 26 Oct 2025

```

Quick Summary

A 15-year-old footballer signed a two-year representation deal with Proform. When the term ended, he signed with Proactive. Proform sued Proactive for inducing breach. The court said: the first deal was voidable by the minor and determinable; therefore, getting him to switch did not amount to procuring a breach. No liability.

Issues

Was Proactive liable for inducing a breach of Proform’s contract with the minor player?
What is the effect of a voidable or determinable contract in such claims?

Rules

No liability for inducing breach of a contract that is voidable by a minor.
If a contract is determinable, persuading a party to end it lawfully is not procuring a breach.
Only contracts of necessity or akin to employment/education may bind minors; pure agency/representation generally does not.

Exam Tip: First classify the underlying contract (voidable? determinable?). If yes, the inducing-breach tort usually fails.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline visual for Proform v. Proactive facts

Dec 2000: Proform signed a two-year representation contract with Wayne Rooney (age 15).

Jun 2002: Player and parents told Proform they would not renew the contract expiring Dec 2002.

14 Dec 2002: Three days after expiry, the player signed with Proactive.

Claim: Proform sued Proactive and a director for unlawful interference / procuring breach of the 2000 agreement.

Arguments

Plaintiff (Proform)

Proactive induced the player to breach the existing representation contract.
Sought damages for unlawful interference with contractual relations.

Defendants (Proactive & Director)

The Proform contract was with a minor and was voidable at his option.
Any ending/turnover was a lawful determination, not a breach.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment concept for Proform v. Proactive

Held for the defendants. The representation agreement was not a contract of necessity or akin to employment/education. It was voidable by the minor and determinable. Hence, Proactive did not procure a breach.

No tort liability for inducing breach.
Contract with minor not enforceable against him in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the underlying contract is voidable by a minor, or otherwise determinable, persuading the minor to end or not renew it does not amount to procuring a breach; thus, no liability for inducing breach arises.

Why It Matters

Protects minors from being locked into agency deals not tied to necessity or education/employment.
Guides sports-agent contracts with youth athletes.
Clarifies the boundary between lawful switching and tortious interference.

Key Takeaways

Agency/representation contracts with minors are typically voidable, not binding.
No inducing-breach liability if the contract can be lawfully determined or not renewed.
To bind a minor, the contract must fit narrow categories (necessaries; akin to employment/education).

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “KID CAN EXIT”

KID: Contract with minor,
CAN: Classified as voidable/determinable,
EXIT: Ending it is lawful → no inducing-breach tort.

3-Step Exam Hook

Is the contract binding on a minor (necessaries/employment-like)?
If not, label it voidable/determinable.
Conclude: no procuring-breach liability for lawful termination/non-renewal.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is Proactive liable for inducing breach of Proform’s representation contract with a minor footballer?

Rule

No liability for inducing breach of a minor’s voidable contract; inducing lawful determination is not a breach.

Application

The representation deal was not necessity/employment-like; thus voidable. The move to Proactive followed expiration/determination.

Conclusion

No actionable breach procured; claim fails.

Glossary

Voidable (by Minor): A contract the minor may avoid; generally not enforceable against the minor.
Determinable: A contract that can be lawfully ended according to its terms or by notice.
Procuring Breach: Tort of inducing a contracting party to break a binding contract.