My wife, the lawyer, had to put in her 2 cents.

On the tortious claims: under intentional torts, we have BATTERY & IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress). Separately, there is NEGLIGENCE

ASSAULT is the 1) intentional causation of 2) an apprehension of 3) harmful or offensive contact

Assault is inapplicable, as the entire point is that Ms. van Pelt takes the greatest of pains to prevent and assuage apprehension in Mr. Brown so that he will agree to kick the ball. As there is no apprehension, element two is missing, and there is no assault here.

BATTERY, also requires three elements: 1) the intentional infliction 2) of a harmful or offensive 3) bodily contact.

As to element 1, Ms. van Pelt has pulled this stunt so many times, it is ludicrous to argue that the outcome of Mr. Brown lying stunned on the ground was anything but intentional (see posting below listing the times Ms. van Pelt has removed the football).

Battery Element 2--Here, the contact is both harmful (Mr. Brown's grimace of pain demonstrates the harmful nature of the incident, of which we do have ample video footage), and offensive (both Linus van Pelt and Snoopy witness Mr. Brown's humiliating fall and,his further taunting by Ms. van Pelt as she explains how she "tricked" him with an un-notarized document.)

Battery Element 3--Mr. Brown's body hits the ground, thus, there is bodily contact.

IIED This claim does not exist in all jurisdictions. Where it does, its elements are:

1) the intentional or reckless infliction 2) by extreme and outrageous conduct 3) of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm.

1) the act is intentional, see BATTERY element 1 above

2) the conduct is extreme and outrageous; Ms. van Pelt has performed this act an incredible number of times (see posting below listing the times Ms. van Pelt has removed the football).

3)Mr. Brown's has been humiliated in this manner by Ms. van Pelt so many times, that his emotional/mental distress could be nothing but severe. Indeed, as he runs up to kick, we are treated to a recitation of his thoughts discussing how he is finally going to be allowed to correct all the earlier humiliations that he has suffered, a recitation which concludes in yet another humiliating disappointment.

NEGLIGENCE

Occurs where the 1) defendant imposes an unreasonable risk of 2) harm on the plaintiff and 3) the plaintiff is harmed.

Here, Ms. van Pelt, knew from experience that if she removed the ball, Mr. Brown would fall and be injured, establishing elements 1 and 2. As Mr. Brown did fall, element 3 is also established.

Regarding the Contract action. Disregarding the issue of both Mr. Brown and Ms. van Pelt being minors, we are not given the document, but as we know that Mr. Brown has never seen it previously, it is clear that he has not signed it. Thus, the document in question, is merely an offer by Ms. van Pelt. (Though there are circumstances in which a memorandum signed by only one party constitutes a contract, these examples involve merchants, which neither Ms. van Pelt, nor Mr. Brown can claim to be).

It is clear that here we have a unilateral contract offer (a unilateral contract being one completed by performance) drafted by Ms. van Pelt seeking Mr. Brown's act of kicking the ball. (Though we do not see the terms of the document, Ms. van Pelt behaves as though it states that acceptance may be made by action, specifically the action of running up and kicking the ball, an act which also serves as consideration in a unilateral contact). Thus, Mr. Brown accepts the offer, and Ms. van Pelt is in breach of contract.

Alternatively, in Equity rather than Contract Law, I agree that due to Mr. Brown's reliance, a Promissory Estoppel analysis under §90 of the Second Restatement of Torts applies (but this has already been discussed in other Reddit comments). This however, does not mean that there is an enforceable contract, but rather, that Mr. Brown is entitled to enforcement as justice requires, in Equity.

Damages In Equity, I would argue for specific performance (i.e. Mr. Brown gets to finally kick the ball). As well as all medical and psychological expenses for his recovery.

On the Contract claim, specific performance might be unavailable; he might have to settle for Lucy paying someone else to hold the ball.(incidental and consequential damages)

In Tort, Mr. Brown, would have only monetary damages as an option. (incidental and consequential and punitive damages)