Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of California - 3 Cal. 3d 176
Tags: Contracts, Damages, Breach, Remedies, Mitigation principle
tl;dr:
When Defendant canceled the film it contracted Plaintiff actress to work on, it offered her a role in a serious project in Australia, where she would be forfeiting the control and approval rights she had in the previous contract. She refused.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1970 California Supreme Court case, Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., actress Shirley MacLaine Parker sued a film studio for breaking a contract where she was promised a role in a musical movie "Bloomer Girl". The studio didn't make the movie and instead offered her a role in a western film, "Big Country, Big Man," which she declined. The studio claimed Parker didn't lessen her damages by refusing the alternative offer.
The court ruled in Parker's favor, stating the studio had to show that the new role was comparable or very similar to the initial one, which they didn't do. Parker was awarded her full salary of $750,000 plus interest. This case is significant because it set the standard that an employee who is wrongfully discharged can recover the agreed-upon salary for the service period, minus what the employer proves the employee made or could've made from other similar employment. The case also acknowledged the artistic and personal interests of performers in selecting roles and projects, dismissing the idea that any film role is equivalent to another. This case is frequently referenced to demonstrate how contract law can safeguard creative professionals from unfair or harsh treatment by employers.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The defendant, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, breached a written contract with a well-known actress for her services as the female lead in a motion picture. The plaintiff filed a complaint with two causes of action: one for money due under the contract and the other for damages resulting from the defendant's breach of contract. The trial court correctly ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. The defendant's claim that the plaintiff deliberately failed to mitigate damages by unreasonably refusing its offer was denied. The court ruled that the substitute employment offer for "Big Country" was inferior because it proposed to eliminate or impair the director and screenplay approvals that the plaintiff had under the original "Bloomer Girl" contract. The deprivation or infringement of an employee's rights under an original employment contract would convert the available "other employment" into inferior employment, which the employee is not required to accept. The rule of mitigating damages applies to wrongfully terminated employees who must make a reasonable effort to secure other employment of the same quality and in the same field as their previous employment. The employee is not obligated to accept any and all types of work, but only a different kind of employment. The relevant question is whether the omission of a particular provision creates employment of an inferior kind, which requires a factual inquiry to determine the importance of the contract term and weigh its absence against the advantages of the alternate employment. The judgment should be reversed so that the issue of whether the offered lead role was comparable to the previous role may be determined at trial.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.