Sam's Style Shop v. Cosmos Broadcasting Corp.

496 F. Supp. 46, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11974
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedJune 12, 1980
DocketCiv. A. 78-2974
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 496 F. Supp. 46 (Sam's Style Shop v. Cosmos Broadcasting Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sam's Style Shop v. Cosmos Broadcasting Corp., 496 F. Supp. 46, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11974 (E.D. La. 1980).

Opinion

CHARLES SCHWARTZ, Jr., District Judge.

This matter came on for hearing on a former day on motion of the defendant for summary judgment. Solely for the purposes of this motion, the parties have jointly stipulated that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried by the Court and the relevant facts are as follows:

The parties entered into an agreement, the terms of which are set forth in a written contract known as a “confirmation order”, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. This agreement followed discussions between Craig Bourgeois, advertising agent for plaintiff, and John Parham, a sales representative of WDSU-TV whose license is owned by the defendant, concerning plaintiff’s desire to broadcast retail comparative price advertising in the New Orleans area.

On October 19, 1977, the station, as was its custom, printed an advertising time schedule on the confirmation order and forwarded three copies of the order to Mr. Parham who sent two of them to Mr. Bour *48 geois (who, having dealt with the station before, was familiar with the document).

Shortly thereafter, on October 24 or 25, Mr. Bourgeois produced certain retail comparative price advertising spots that conformed with the parties’ agreement with respect to content and in the late afternoon of October 26, 1977 sent them from Pensacola, Florida to New Orleans by bus.

The schedule of advertising time in the confirmation order, dated October 19, 1977, placed the first of plaintiff’s spots in a slot between 3:00 P.M. and 4:57 P.M. on October 26, 1977.

Upon arriving at the station on the afternoon of October 26th, the spots were immediately screened by John Parham, Rick Levy, local sales manager, and Dick Wexo, general sales manager. After viewing the spots, Mr. Wexo, relying on paragraph 8(d) of the confirmation order, decided that the station would not broadcast any retail comparative price advertising commercial material and rejected those supplied by the plaintiff. Prior to the commercial material made subject of this litigation, the station had never been asked to consider retail comparative price advertising by any advertising customer.

At approximately 3:40 P.M. on October 26, 1977, Mr. Parham called the Bourgeois agency to inform Mr. Bourgeois of said decision. Unable to reach him, Mr. Parham left word with Mr. Bourgeois’ answering service. The two spoke the next day when Mr. Parham informed Mr. Bourgeois of the station’s decision.

The parties further stipulated for the purposes of this motion, that if the Court finds that defendant did not breach the aforementioned October 1977 contract, then defendant has not breached the March 1978 contract, which is also made subject of this lawsuit.

On moving for summary judgment, the defendant asks the Court to interpret sub-paragraph 8(d) of the confirmation agreement which reads as follows:

“Television program and commercial material provided by AGENCY (plaintiff herein) is subject to STATION (defendant herein) approval and STATION may exercise a continuing right to reject such material including a right to reject for unsatisfactory technical quality. .
In the event the commercial material is unsatisfactory, STATION shall notify AGENCY by collect telegram and unless AGENCY furnishes satisfactory material 24 hours prior to telecast time, this contract may be terminated by either party without penalty to either party.”

Defendant maintains that this provision gives the station complete discretion in deciding whether to broadcast commercial material submitted by its advertising clients. Such an interpretation would obligate the plaintiff to perform by furnishing advertising material for the scheduled time, but would grant the defendant the unrestricted option to approve or disapprove the submitted advertising for any reason whatsoever.

In support of this contention, defendant argues that the condition in the contract at issue is a purely potestative suspensive condition modifying the obligation of the obligor. The legal effect of such condition is to suspend the obligation of the obligor in whose favor the condition runs, until the obligor elects to be bound. If the obligor chooses not to be bound then his obligation is null and unenforceable. 1 The courts have defined the purely potestative *49 condition as depending solely on the will, whim or caprice of the obligor. Robinson v. Bensabat, 87 So.2d 153 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1956); Stephen L. Guice and Co. v. Perkowski, 12 So.2d 692, 696-698 (La.App.Orl.1943).

While the Court agrees with the defendant’s analysis of the legal effects of a purely potestative condition in the hands of the obligor, 2 we cannot accept the characterization of this condition as purely potestative which would afford defendant’s obligation the nullity of Art. 2034.

The condition under consideration is properly characterized as a simple potestative condition which according to Art. 2035 does not nullify the obligation. The simple potestative condition calls upon the obligor to perform some act prior to the execution of the obligation. It therefore does not suspend the formation of the obligor’s obligation but suspends the execution of the obligation. 3 Performance is not totally dependent on the obligor’s will, “[but] imposes on the obligor the duty of fulfilling it or of making a sincere effort [to fulfill it].” Stephen L. Guice and Co., Inc. v. Perkowski, supra.

Specifically, the only reasonable interpretation of the right of defendant pursuant to Subparagraph 8(d) to reject certain commercial material is that such right does not depend solely upon the exercise of the station’s will, but is limited by defendant’s implied duty to act reasonably and in accordance with objective standards employed in the television industry. Moreover, a contrary conclusion could only be reached by a strained interpretation of this subparagraph which includes as a specific cause (or example) for rejection “unsatisfactory technical quality.” This conclusion is buttressed by an examination of the contract in its entirety and with particular reference to the provisions of Subparagraph 2(a), 2(b) and 2(e):

“(a) Commercial announcements or programs of less than 5 minutes duration may be cancelled by STATION or AGENCY upon 14 days prior notice but no such cancellation shall be effective until 28 days after start of telecasting, hereunder unless otherwise stated on face of confirmation.
(b) Programs of 5 minutes or more duration may be cancelled by STATION or AGENCY upon such prior notice -as stated on the face of confirmation.
(c) If AGENCY cancels contract earned rates will apply. If STATION cancels contract AGENCY shall have the benefit of the same discounts which it would have earned had it been allowed to complete the contract.”

Thus, if defendant, as it contends, has the right to cancel any material at any time pursuant to Subparagraph 8(d) then Subparagraph 2 is surplusage and meaningless.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
496 F. Supp. 46, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sams-style-shop-v-cosmos-broadcasting-corp-laed-1980.