Cbs, Inc., Plaintiff/counterdefendant Appellee/cross-Appellant v. David Merrick, Defendant/counterclaimant Appellant/cross-Appellee

716 F.2d 1292, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16520
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 27, 1983
DocketCA 82-5520, 82-5557
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 716 F.2d 1292 (Cbs, Inc., Plaintiff/counterdefendant Appellee/cross-Appellant v. David Merrick, Defendant/counterclaimant Appellant/cross-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cbs, Inc., Plaintiff/counterdefendant Appellee/cross-Appellant v. David Merrick, Defendant/counterclaimant Appellant/cross-Appellee, 716 F.2d 1292, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16520 (9th Cir. 1983).

Opinions

SOLOMON, Senior District Judge:

CBS, Inc., appellee, filed an action against David Merrick in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for rescission seeking restitution and consequential damages. Merrick removed the action on the grounds of diversity of citizenship to the federal court where he filed an answer and also a counterclaim for damages for breach of contract. Thereafter, CBS filed an amended complaint containing a separate cause of action for damages for breach of contract. After a court trial, the district court found that Merrick had breached his contract with CBS and awarded CBS the amount it had paid Merrick and his agent but denied CBS recovery for the amount paid out to Fried-kin, the director, and Green, the screenwriter, after execution of and in reliance on the contract. The court denied Merrick any relief. Both parties appeal.

[1294]*1294CBS contends that the district court erred in refusing to award reliance damages in addition to the award for restitution.

Facts

David Merrick is a well known producer of entertainment programs for stage and screen. CBS is a major television network.

In early 1977, Merrick acquired the motion picture and television rights to the novel Blood and Money. CBS negotiated with Merrick for the right to do a mini-series based on that novel, and on August 1, 1977, the parties signed two documents — a Rights Agreement and a Production Agreement.

In the Rights Agreement, CBS agreed to pay Merrick $1,250,000 for the right to do a television series based on Blood and Money. CBS paid Merrick $833,333.34 when the agreement was executed and agreed to pay Merrick the balance in installments when various stages of production were completed. It was agreed that if photography did not commence within two years, that is, by August 1,1979, the agreement would terminate and CBS would pay Merrick the balance owed on the contract. In addition, the rights to Blood and Money would revert to Merrick. The agreement required all modifications to be in writing.

In the Production Agreement, CBS agreed to pay Merrick an additional $250,-000 to produce the show. The parties agreed to consult on the selection of the writer, director and principal actors. Merrick would then negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and CBS would then enter into contracts with these persons containing the terms negotiated by Merrick.

It was also agreed that when the final screenplay was delivered, the parties would prepare an operating budget. CBS had ninety days from the delivery of the final screenplay to notify Merrick whether it would proceed with the project. If CBS elected not to proceed and if Merrick had not breached the contract and was ready, willing and able to perform his duties as producer, CBS was obligated to pay Merrick the entire $250,000 and all rights to the story Blood and Money would revert to him.

Merrick promptly selected a director and screenwriter. The fee for the director was $500,000 regardless of whether the show was produced. The fee for the screenwriter was $250,000. When Merrick hired them, he knew that they were working on another project and that they could not immediately start to work on Blood and Money. Merrick failed to tell them about the deadline, and he ignored suggestions that he hire a second writer.

The first segment of the screenplay was not delivered until September, 1978, and the screenplay was not completed until June, 1979. However, by April, 1979, it was apparent that the August 1, 1979 deadline could not be met because at that time the screenplay had not been completed and at least six months’ pre-production work was required before photography could start.

On April 9, 1979, Merrick met with CBS executives, and he orally agreed to extend the deadline. CBS sent Merrick proposed drafts of a written amendment. Although Merrick did not object to the basic terms, he objected to their form and complexity. CBS delivered a simplified draft to Merrick, but he never signed it.

On May 17, 1979, Merrick’s attorney sent a telex to CBS stating that Merrick would not agree to any changes in the original agreements. Nevertheless, Merrick continued to act as though the deadline had been extended, and later he described the telex as “lawyer stuff.” Five days before the August 1 deadline, CBS told Merrick of its decision to proceed with the production of the show. Merrick expressed enthusiasm for the project. Twelve days after the deadline, CBS and Merrick met to plan the project.

On August 24, 1979, CBS met with Merrick’s agents to discuss a budget and a tentative production schedule, but in the following month Merrick notified CBS that [1295]*1295all rights to the story had reverted to him because CBS had not met the August 1 deadline. No further work was ever done on the project.

The district court found in favor of CBS and against Merrick on six separate grounds: (1) Merrick waived his right to enforce the deadline; (2) Merrick was es-topped from asserting the deadline; (3) CBS’s failure to meet the deadline was excused because Merrick contributed to the failure; (4) Merrick breached his oral agreement to extend the deadline; (5) Merrick failed to meet an express condition precedent of the contract in that he was not ready, willing and able to perform; and (6) Merrick breached the agreement before the deadline.

The court awarded CBS the $833,333.34 it had paid Merrick and also $83,333.33, the amount that CBS had paid William Morris Agency, Merrick’s agents. The court denied CBS the $750,000 which CBS was contractually liable to pay the director and screenwriter for their services. The court also denied Merrick any recovery on his counterclaim.

I. Merrick’s Appeal

Merrick, in this appeal, asserts that under New York law, which the contract provides and the parties agree shall govern their controversy, the district court erred in awarding CBS rescission and restitution and any damages, and in refusing to award Merrick any relief. Specifically, Merrick asserts that the district court was clearly in error when it found in favor of CBS on the six separate grounds, including findings that Merrick had no excuse for his refusal to perform his contract with CBS and that he waived his right to have the photography commence before August 1, 1979.

Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existence and the intent to relinquish it. City of New York v. State, 40 N.Y.2d 659, 357 N.E.2d 988, 389 N.Y.S.2d 332 (1976). A contractual deadline may be waived by acts, words or conduct inconsistent with the deadline. Lord Construction Co. v. Edison Portland Cement Co., 234 N.Y. 411, 138 N.E. 39 (1923).

The existence of a waiver is usually a fact question; therefore, the trial court’s finding should be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). The district court found Merrick’s conduct and words inconsistent with the August 1, 1979 deadline. Merrick had hired a writer and director, both of whom were unable to work on Blood and Money until they had finished another project. He did not tell either of them about the deadline, and he ignored suggestions to hire a second writer.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd.
221 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (C.D. California, 2016)
Hansen Bancorp, Inc. v. United States
53 Fed. Cl. 92 (Federal Claims, 2002)
California Federal Bank v. United States
43 Fed. Cl. 445 (Federal Claims, 1999)
Glendale Federal Bank, FSB v. United States
43 Fed. Cl. 390 (Federal Claims, 1999)
In Re County of Orange
219 B.R. 543 (C.D. California, 1997)
Taft-Peirce Manufacturing Co. v. Seagate Technology, Inc.
789 F. Supp. 1220 (D. Rhode Island, 1992)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Elliott
953 F.2d 1560 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Manatt
688 F. Supp. 1327 (E.D. Arkansas, 1988)
United States v. King Features Entertainment, Inc.
843 F.2d 394 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
In Re Spats Restaurant & Saloon
64 B.R. 442 (D. Nevada, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
716 F.2d 1292, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cbs-inc-plaintiffcounterdefendant-appelleecross-appellant-v-david-ca9-1983.