District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Paige
Petersen No. 150905943
O. Morris, Attorney for Appellants
M. Wahlquist, Adam D. Wahlquist, and Justin W. Starr,
Attorneys for Appellee
Gregory K. Orme and David N. Mortensen concurred.
Schneider Automotive Group LLC and Nate Wade Subaru
(collectively, Nate Wade) helped sponsor a charity golf
tournament. When Brett Wayment made a hole in one at the
eighth hole in that tournament, he believed he had won the
new car that Nate Wade parked near the hole's tee box.
Nate Wade, however, refused to deliver the car, claiming
Wayment was ineligible because he was a professional golfer.
Wayment sued for breach of contract. After the parties
conducted discovery, Wayment moved for summary judgment on
his contract claim, which the district court granted. Nate
Wade now appeals that decision, contending that there are
material questions of fact that precluded summary judgment.
We agree and reverse.
In June 2015, Wayment, a professional golfer, played in a
charity golf tournament sponsored, in part, by Nate Wade.
Rule sheets, which described the tournament format and
identified a hole-in-one contest at the eighth hole, were
placed on the participants' golf carts. See
infra Appendix. When golfers arrived at the eighth hole,
they saw a new 2015 Subaru XV Crosstrek parked next to the
tee box along with a sponsorship sign with Nate Wade's
name and logo. See id. Neither the rule sheet nor
the sign stated that the Subaru, or any other prize, would be
awarded. See id.
As luck, or Wayment's skill, would have it, Wayment made
a hole in one at the eighth hole. After holing the shot,
Wayment believed he won the Subaru based on the tournament
rule sheet indicating the contest on the eighth hole, Nate
Wade's sponsorship of the hole, and the parked car. At
the clubhouse, however, the club pro told Wayment, "Good
luck getting that car, Brett," because he knew Wayment
was a professional golfer. Several days after the tournament,
when Nate Wade discovered that Wayment was a professional
golfer, it refused to deliver the car. The tournament
organizer did not expect professional golfers to compete for
tournament prizes without disclosing their professional
status, which Wayment never did. And although that condition
was never communicated to the tournament participants, the
insurance policy that Nate Wade procured for the tournament
required that the hole in one be made by an
Wayment sued Nate Wade for breach of contract. He claimed
that he had accepted Nate Wade's unilateral offer to give
him the car when he made the hole in one, while Nate Wade
maintained that professional golfers were excluded from the
Because there was no written agreement detailing what was
promised, each side obtained opinions from professional
golfers about whether it was reasonable for Wayment to
believe he was eligible to win the Subaru under the
circumstances. Wayment and another professional golfer
(Wayment's Expert) both opined that nothing in the custom
or rules of the golf community bars professionals from
winning prizes in charity golf events. However, the club pro
from the tournament (Nate Wade's Expert) disagreed. He
expressed his opinion that, as a matter of custom,
professional golfers should disclose their professional
status before playing in golf events with amateurs. He also
opined that it is generally understood in the golf community
that professional golfers are not eligible for competition
prizes unless the competition rules explicitly say otherwise.
At his deposition, Nate Wade's Expert agreed there was no
"uniformity amongst all pros in the golf community"
regarding a professional's eligibility for competition
prizes in charity golf tournaments. He explained that his
opinion on the ineligibility of professional golfers in prize
contests was a "personal feeling" and asserted that
other professionals might reasonably think differently. And
when asked specifically whether it was reasonable for Wayment
to believe he was eligible to participate in the prize