Runner's logo falls foul of race rules

By GRAHAM HENSON*

Outdoor sports events proliferate throughout the summer. Some of them are populist, but others are serious events with money at stake.

So when you next dust off your gear and hunt down your sponsor for 100km of pain, make sure your advertising does not clash with the event's sponsor. It can get you banned. And for good reason, said a judge in a recent case.

A duathlon series has been run along the Auckland waterfront between November and March for the past five years or so.

The Stroke and Stride race involves a sea swim in St Heliers Bay and a run along the waterfront towards Kohimarama.

Contained in the race documentation is the phrase, "Entry to any race in the series is at the discretion of the race organiser."

Nathan Richmond competed in 1995, 1996 and 1997. At the start of the first race in 1997, he wore gear endorsed with the Bluebird Potato Chip logo. The principal race sponsor was Bluebird's competitor, ETA Chips.

After the sponsor expressed concern to the organiser about what the television cameras and the public would see, the organiser issued formal rules stating that competitors could not carry advertising deemed to be in competition with the series' main sponsor.

Despite the organiser's concerns, Mr Richmond continued to wear Bluebird logos on his gear for the rest of the 1997 series.

He did not compete in 1998 but was refused entry in 1999 and again in 2000, when he applied for a court injunction to force the organiser to allow him entry.

Mr Richmond's main argument was that receipt of his entry form and fee was a concluded contract, and that the organiser could only exercise his discretion to ban an entrant in good faith and for reasons of the safety of competitors or the conduct of the race.

The High Court judge disagreed. He held that the blank entry form was only an invitation by the organiser. By sending in his completed form, it was Mr Richmond who was making an offer to compete. That offer became the basis of a contract once the organiser had exercised his discretion and accepted the entry.

But had not the organiser exercised his discretion in bad faith or for the wrong reason?

"The organiser of any event needs to have discretion where the entry of one or two persons can disrupt the enjoyment of the other contestants, regardless of whether they are good athletes," said the judge.

In this case, the organiser's decision to exclude Mr Richmond had been made fairly and in consideration of the other participants in the Stroke and Stride.

ETA had subsequently declined to sponsor the race. The organiser said this was partly because of the Bluebird logos on Mr Richmond's gear. As a result of ETA's withdrawal, the prizemoney was considerably reduced.

It was important to the organiser, the judge said, that the sponsors' involvement was not jeopardised.

The Stroke and Stride organiser had not done or said anything during or after the 1999 series that could have encouraged Mr Richmond to think his application would be treated any differently in 2000.

Various other claims by Mr Richmond were also dismissed. In particular, the judge held there was no misleading conduct, nor was there any evidence of any intention by the organiser to harm Mr Richmond's economic interest.

Mr Richmond's appeal to the Court of Appeal also failed.

*Graham Henson is the editor of CCH Business Law Guide. CCH (New Zealand) is a tax, business and employment law publisher based in Auckland. For more information, see www.cch.co.nz or phone 0800-500-224.