Hello World Broadcasting Corp. v. International Broadcasting Corp.

173 So. 115, 186 La. 589, 1937 La. LEXIS 1110
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 1, 1937
DocketNo. 33957.
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 173 So. 115 (Hello World Broadcasting Corp. v. International Broadcasting Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hello World Broadcasting Corp. v. International Broadcasting Corp., 173 So. 115, 186 La. 589, 1937 La. LEXIS 1110 (La. 1937).

Opinion

LAND, Justice.

On May 24, 1933, plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant whereby the latter undertook to purchase from plaintiff Radio Station KWKH in Shreveport, La., for the sum of $50,000 cash.

By supplemental agreement of same date, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff, in addition to the $50,000 cash stipulated in the contract, “time on the station at our prevailing card rate to the amount of $5,000.-00.” Tr., p. 25.

Plaintiff avers that one of the moving, principal causes of the agreement and contract of sale was the obligation on the part of both obligor and obligee to operate KWKH in the city of Shreveport, La., upon its licensed clear channel wave length of 850 kilocycles.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant, on or about June 4, 1934, violated the letter, terms, and conditions of its agreement and contract by entering into a contract and agreement with Loyola University Radio Station WWL, whereby defendant relinquished and assigned the clear channel wave length- of KWKH on 850 kilocycles, and received in return the sum of $25,000 in cash, and an assigned frequency to go on the air on the wave 'length of 1,100 kilocycles full time, subject to the approval of the Federal Radio-Commission.

It is further alleged by plaintiff that, for many years, Station KWKH had been duly granted a license by the Federal Radio- *593 Commission to operate on a clear wave channel at 850 kilocycles, and did so continuously operate on that channel from the time the permit was first granted until the date of the sale; that a clear channel for a city the size of Shreveport and that community, with a nation wide coverage, had placed Shreveport and that community in radio facilities and prominence among the larger cities of the nation; and that a continuance of its original clear wave channel at 850 kilocycles and its operation on that frequency for the betterment of Shreveport and that community was the principal and controlling cause and consideration in the confection and execution of plaintiff’s contract of sale with defendant.

Plaintiff finally alleges that an outright sale of Station KWKH, without a restriction as to the retention of its clear wave channel at 850 kilocycles, would have been worth an amount greatly in excess of $50,-000, and that not less than the sum of $85,-000 would have been accepted for such an outright sale, and claims damages for the violation of the contract in the sum of the difference between $50,000, paid to plaintiff by defendant, and the sum of $85,000, or the sum of $35,000.

Plaintiff also alleges that the supplemental contract of $5,000, as to “time on the station at our prevailing card rate,” became and is a part of the original contract of sale by plaintiff to defendant of Radio Station KWKH; that plaintiff was to receive this advertising time on a clear channel upon an assigned frequency of 850 kilocycles at the prevailing card rate for advertising; that defendant had furnished plaintiff the advertising time upon the station to the amount of $2,250; but that by reason of the change in radio frequency to 1,100 kiloc3',cles by the contract of defendant with Radio Station WWL the advertising value to have been received by plaintiff, under the supplemental contract, is valueless.

Plaintiff also alleges that damages in the additional sum of $2,750 are therefore due and owing to it.

The total claim of plaintiff for damages for violation of the contract is the sum of $37,500.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $21,250, which included $18,500 for breach of defendant’s alleged obligation to maintain the station on 850 kilocycles, and $2,750 for breach of defendant’s supplemental agreement to furnish plaintiff advertising upon the same basis.

From the judgment rendered on this verdict, the defendant has appealed.

1. When the contract for the sale of Radio Station KWKH of Shreveport was entered into by plaintiff and defendant, and for some time prior thereto, Loyola University of New Orleans, La., operator of Radio Station WWL, had filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission at Washington, D. C., seeking to obtain a permit for full time operation on the wave length o'f 850 kilocycles, sharing at the time on this wave length with KWKH, which was being operated by plaintiff in Shreveport, La.

*595 There were numerous other applications pending before the commission for the purpose of securing plaintiff’s right to broadcast on 850 kilocycles.

Some time prior to the date of plaintiff’s •contract with defendant, a hearing was had before an examiner of the commission, who' filed a report recommending that the application of Loyola University for the exclusive right to operate on 850 kilocycles be granted, and that Station KWKH be denied a renewal of its license to continue part time operation on this radio frequency. Tr., p. 20.

An appeal was taken from the findings of the Examiner direct to the Federal. Radio Commission, and on September 15, 1933, some' four months after the contract between plaintiff and defendant had been executed, the commission reversed the findings of the examiner and ordered that the license of KWKH of Shreveport be renewed and that the application of Loyola University for exclusive and full time operation on 850 kilocycles be denied. Tr., p. 20.

Accordingly, the Federal Radio Commission gave its approval to the contract between plaintiff and defendant and transferred the license o.f plaintiff, Hello World Broadcasting Corporation, to operate Station KWKH part time on 850 kilocycles, to .defendant, International Broadcasting Corporation. Shortly after the decision of the Federal Radio Commission was promulgated, Loyola University took an appeal from the decision to the District Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

On or about June 4, 1934, during the pendency of the appeal in the District of Columbia, the International Broadcasting Corporation entered into an agreement with Loyola University, whereby defendant agreed to assign the clear channel wave length of KWKH to Station WWL, and in return for this relinquishment received from Loyola University, the operator of said station, $25,000 in cash. Tr., p. 21.

, The agreement between these parties is annexed to and made a part of the petition, and a reference to that agreement indicates that it was entered into between defendant and Loyola for the purposes of compromising their differences with regard to the operations of KWKH and WWL on the 850 kilocycles wave length, and to terminate all differences of every kind existing between the parties. The New Orleans Station agreed to withdraw all appeals or protests filed by it before the Federal Radio Commission and to dismiss its appeal pending in the courts. The contract recites that it is made on condition that the Federal Radio Commission will approve the issuance of a license for full time operation to KWKH on a nevr wave length of 1,100 kilocycles, with directional antennae to be constructed in conformity with the requirements of the Commission. Tr., p. 27.

2. Plaintiff avers that one of the moving, principal causes of the agreement and contract of sale

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

Related

Walker v. Hixson Autoplex of Monroe, L.L.C.
245 So. 3d 1088 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co.
144 So. 3d 791 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2013)
Terrick v. State
787 So. 2d 350 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
State v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Com'n
640 So. 2d 1368 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)
Valiulis v. L'Atelier Wholesale Antiques Ltd.
519 So. 2d 312 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Ouachita Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Pierce
270 So. 2d 595 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1972)
Jefferson Truck Equipment Co. v. Guarisco Motor Co.
250 So. 2d 211 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1971)
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Chappuis
239 So. 2d 400 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1970)
Harry Bourg Corp. v. Union Producing Co.
197 So. 2d 172 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
Brooks v. Griggs Casing Crews, Inc.
136 So. 2d 693 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
Carter Oil Company v. King
134 So. 2d 89 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
Elkins v. Townsend
182 F. Supp. 861 (W.D. Louisiana, 1960)
Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co.
88 So. 2d 231 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1956)
Southwest Gas Producing Co. v. Hattie Brothers
88 So. 2d 649 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1956)
Gordon v. Unity Life Ins. Co.
39 So. 2d 812 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1949)
Gulf Refining Co. v. Garrett
25 So. 2d 329 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1945)
Swearingen v. Maynard
9 So. 2d 272 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1942)
Reynaud v. Bullock
196 So. 29 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 So. 115, 186 La. 589, 1937 La. LEXIS 1110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hello-world-broadcasting-corp-v-international-broadcasting-corp-la-1937.