Shirley Parker contracted with Twentieth Century-Fox film Corp. to play the lead female actresses in the musical Bloomer Girl. The contract stated that she would be compensated of $750,000 for her role beginning May 26, 1966. On April 4, 1966, Fox informed Parker of its intention not to produce the film any longer, and instead offered her the lead role in another film with the contract being almost identical to the previous one. Parker refused and brought suit against Fox for breach of contract. The judgment ruled in favor of Parker. That Fox breached the original contract and that even though Fox made a counteroffer, Parker can legally refuse and not face damages. This case covers the mitigation of damages. An injured party’s damages may not be reduced by mitigation for her failure to accept or seek other employment of a different or inferior kind. Parker must proof that the new role as acting in a western is not equivalent to singing and dancing in a musical. The new role must not be different and inferior, and that no factual dispute was presented. However, this was not the scenario here between the offers. That the new offer was different and inferior and therefore, did not have to accept or try to mitigate damages. Fox cancelled the original contract very close to the start date of the musical. The musical was to be filmed in Los Angeles, and likely to be in a convenient location for Parker. The new role in the western film was going to be produced in Australia. This
After determining that the exercise of the option clause had the effect of creating a new contract with the plaintiff, the Fifth Circuit concluded:
1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).
Roosevelt referred to me as "Little Miss Miracle" for raising the public's morale during the hard times of The Great Depression, even going so far as to say, "As long as our country has Shirley Temple, we will be all right." My song-and-dance routine to the tune "On the Good Ship Lollipop" in 1934's Bright Eyes earned me a special Academy Award, for "Outstanding Personality of 1934." By 1940, I had 43 films under my belt.
Ms. Almanza claimed she researched and provided the claimant’s entire personnel file for this investigation and stated she was not aware of any industrial-related injuries associated with the claimants said injuries, by noting that no treating physicians ever provided any causation or the implied injuries. She provided proof with the claimant’s personnel file taken into as evidence by stating there was no medical evidence, doctors note or request of modified work duties to suggest any medical
RATIONALE: The court held that the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence ought to be superseded by a rule which assesses liability in proportion to fault, since the doctrine is inequitable for failing to distribute responsibility in a proportional manner.
From the beginning of this litigation, Appellant has argued that his Property was damaged by Respondent’s negligence and that he is entitled to compensation for this damage to his Property.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming that it was vicariously liable for his assault by Cerantonio. The defendant argued that since Cerantonio was engaging in unauthorised conduct, the defendant could not be liable. The matter in contention was whether the assault was conducted in the course of employment.
“The defendant may satisfy his burden only if he establishes that: 1) there was substantially equivalent positions which were available; and 2) the claimant failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such positions.” Mitigation of damages exists when: (1) there is substantially equivalent positions and (2) there was a reasonable diligence. Ms. Fry found some jobs but did not equal for his positions as receptionist. On of the job is housekeepers and this is lower level job contrast for her job as receptionist. Other job was not the same time which is nightshifts, and this cannot do again because her
The claimant had stated before she started at Yamaha Motor Inc. she did not report her injuries to the Human Resources Department or her supervisor when hired on 9-5-12. She stated if she did, it might have compromised her chances in gaining employment with theYamaha Motors Corporation
Born in January, less than a month after his mother finished performing in the Nutcracker, Joshua Colley was destined to own the stage. Before Joshua’s talents took New York City by storm, he lived in Trinity, Florida with his parents, Bradley and Robbie Colley, where they owned a Children’s Theatre Company. Joshua, along with his twin brother, Cameron, spent his early years playing backstage, memorizing all the lines to the current productions, and reenacting them for his friends and family. His parents used to tease their actors that they would replace them with their sons one day, but they couldn’t have began to know the even more spectacular journey their boy’s talents would take them.
Jack sues Teri in municipal court, asking for specific performance in accordance with the original deal. Teri argues that, although specific performance is usually appropriate in land sales contract cases, the judge has the discretion to
This paper will discuss the legal issues in Case Example B. In the case of Wilbur versus XYZ Counseling Agency, the legal issue involves Wilbur suing XYZ Counseling Agency for being beaten during a counseling session by Chuck, who is an anger management counselor for the company. The plaintiff Wilbur believes that XYZ Counseling Company should be held responsible for the behaviors of their employees. Why did Chuck become angry and beat up Wilbur? Did Chuck violate the intentional torts against person? If so, which tort did Chuck violate? Did Chuck owe a duty of care to Wilbur? If so, was there a break of the duty of care? Why did XYZ Counseling Company hire Chuck with his history of negligence? If XYZ Counseling Agency has a specific policy against violence, why wasn’t Chuck disciplined accordingly for violating company policy? Should XYZ Counseling Company be held responsible for an employee’s act of negligence? For these reasons, before a decision can be delivered, there are a number of questions that need to be answered by the plaintiff and the dependent
Columbia Pictures hired her at $125 per week. While at Columbia, Monroe was given a second billing in Ladies of the Chorus, film that Monroe featured a singing musical number. Even though she positive reviews, her contract at Columbia was not
The film industry in Louisiana has seen tremendous growth in the last decade due to a generous film tax credit program. The big motion picture companies seem to be bringing more pictures to be filmed in “Hollywood South” claiming the films create jobs and spur economic growth. Louisiana residents are wowed by the chance to potentially see movies filmed in their neighborhoods, the chance to meet stars and perhaps be an extra in a scene. Though many in the state are claiming that the film tax credit program is too costly to maintain.
Later Parker sued Fox to recover the agreed guaranteed compensation for “Bloomer Girl” and the defendant's breach of contract. 3) Issue Was the job that Fox offered Parker in Big Country comparable employment and was Parker obligated to accept to mitigate damages? 4) Decisions The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff.