1. Robinson, a college football player, signed a contract on December 2 with the Detroit Lions, a pro football club. The contract was a standard form that contained a clause stating, "This agreement shall become valid and binding upon each party only when and if it shall be approved by the League Commissioner." In late December, Robinson informed the Detroit Lions that he would not be playing for them because he had signed on with the Dallas Cowboys. On January 12 the commissioner approved the contract. Detroit then sued Robinson for breach of contract. Was there ever a contract between Robinson and the Detroit Lions? Why or why not?

Of course there was no contract. The contract was conditional and
One of the parties decided that was inadequate.

When Robinson signed the contract it was subject to the approval of the commissioner. This was an express condition precedent and by Robinson signing, he has an implied good faith effort to allow the commissioner the opportunity to accept. Robinson's power of revocation was temporarily suspended while he was waiting to be approved by the commissioner. His later revocation is considered a antipatory repudiation. Subseqently, when the commissioner approved the contract, it was binding and Robinson's repudiation can be considered a material breach by the Detroit Lions.

Also... it is important to remember a few things... First, the intent of the parties, and second- whether the commissioner acted within a "reasonable" amount of time.

A contract was formed.

Unless one can argue that Dec 2 – Jan 12, 40 days, was unreasonable for a commissioner to make a decision.

But assuming that is was reasonable, as corey stated, a contract was formed.

"This agreement shall become valid and binding upon each party only when and if it shall be approved by the League Commissioner."

I am sorry for the delayed reply, because I just stumbled on it.

In my view, the contract does not become binding until approved by the League Commissioner. It is a condition, yes but is subject to the approval. I think there is no contract between the parties.

The fact that the Club waited until the approval was received to take action against Robinson suggests that the Club has bad intentions.

1. Robinson, a college football player, signed a contract on December 2 with the Detroit Lions, a pro football club. The contract was a standard form that contained a clause stating, "This agreement shall become valid and binding upon each party only when and if it shall be approved by the League Commissioner." In late December, Robinson informed the Detroit Lions that he would not be playing for them because he had signed on with the Dallas Cowboys. On January 12 the commissioner approved the contract. Detroit then sued Robinson for breach of contract. Was there ever a contract between Robinson and the Detroit Lions? Why or why not?

In my opinion, there is no contract between them, although both parties signed a contract on December 2, but since the clause state that the contract will become vaild only if it shall be approved by the League Commissioner, it means the contract does not have legal power to bilnd both parties. A contract is an agreement that both parties agreed the context in the agreement (contract), no contract is made before it is approved.

It appears to be homework. Old homework at that. The rule, broken several times in this thread, is that we don't do homework.