year one contracts brief #3

Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. – (limitation on expectation damages)

Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 3 Cal.3d 176, 474 P.2d 689 (1970)

BY: James F. Polk – AISOL YEAR ONE STUDENT

 

Facts:

  • Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to play a role in a musical film for $750,000.
  • The contract had certain elements:
    • Filmed in Los Angeles.
    • Had the right to control certain changes in script with Director.
    • Approved of Director.
    • Could showcase her singing and dancing.
  • The Defendant Film Company decided (for different reasons) not to film the film.
  • Defendant Film Company offered “Big Country, Big Man” as substitute work for the same $750,000.
  • Plaintiff refused the substitute work and sued for $750,000.
  • Plaintiff motioned for a summary judgment.
  • Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgment.
  • Defendant appeals.

History:

  • Plaintiff motioned for a summary judgment.
  • Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgment.
  • Defendant appeals.

Issue:  Whether the substitute work offered forward to take the place of the contracted for work from the musical that the Defendant Film Company decided not to film was different enough in it’s material elements and factors so as to create a duty by law on the part of the Plaintiff Actress to accept the substitute work as a mitigation of damages.

Reasoning: The first role was superior employment.  The substitute role was inferior employment.  The two roles were not comparable enough and were not sufficiently substantially similar.  Therefore the Plaintiff was under no duty to accept the substitute role and was owed the $750,000.  The Plaintiff’s refusal to accept the inferior role did not reduce her damages awarded.  It is not taken into consideration that the Plaintiff refused the role and/or that she did not seek a different employment at that time because she passed up other roles to accept the first superior role and her contract said that if the Defendant did not make the film that she had already accepted the role and was due her $750,000.  This was not an unenforceable clause in the Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant.

Analysis:  Though the contract was better in the first case and the actress was better able to showcase her skills in the first case, it seems to me that the most weighty element was the location.  Australia is far away from Los Angeles and would require a large change in life situation for the duration of filming.  This was not very heavily weighed.

Conclusion:  Judgment Affirmed

Dissent:  The Dissenting opinion was that a “female lead” in a movie was an acceptable substitute.

Discussion:  The issue was not whether there would be injury to the reputation of the Plaintiff Actress by accepting a less desirable contract and roll and movie and filming location.