Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer, Inc. v. Roy Scheider case brief summary
43 A.D.2d 922; 352 N.Y.S.2d 205
CASE SYNOPSIS:
In plaintiff producer's action to enjoin defendant actor from working for others, and for damage for breach of contract, the producer challenged the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (New York), which sustained the actor's defense of statute of frauds, claiming that the contract was not performable within a year.
OVERVIEW: The producer and a television broadcaster made an agreement, pursuant to which the producer was, at the television broadcaster's option to be exercised after receipt of a script, to make a pilot film to be the precursor, if the broadcaster exercised a second option to that effect, of a television series to be broadcast by the broadcaster. The producer then entered into an oral agreement with the actor to play the lead in both the pilot and in the making of the series, and possible yearly series for five years, if the broadcaster decided to proceed. The actor refused to report for filming of the series after the broadcaster accepted the pilot.
HOLDING:
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court holding that the statute of frauds was no defense as the contract was performable within one year.
ANALYSIS:
Performance for the series would have been completed before the first broadcast date, less than a year from the first agreement.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which sustained the actor's defense of statute of frauds in the producer's breach of contract action.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
43 A.D.2d 922; 352 N.Y.S.2d 205
CASE SYNOPSIS:
In plaintiff producer's action to enjoin defendant actor from working for others, and for damage for breach of contract, the producer challenged the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (New York), which sustained the actor's defense of statute of frauds, claiming that the contract was not performable within a year.
OVERVIEW: The producer and a television broadcaster made an agreement, pursuant to which the producer was, at the television broadcaster's option to be exercised after receipt of a script, to make a pilot film to be the precursor, if the broadcaster exercised a second option to that effect, of a television series to be broadcast by the broadcaster. The producer then entered into an oral agreement with the actor to play the lead in both the pilot and in the making of the series, and possible yearly series for five years, if the broadcaster decided to proceed. The actor refused to report for filming of the series after the broadcaster accepted the pilot.
HOLDING:
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court holding that the statute of frauds was no defense as the contract was performable within one year.
ANALYSIS:
Performance for the series would have been completed before the first broadcast date, less than a year from the first agreement.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which sustained the actor's defense of statute of frauds in the producer's breach of contract action.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment