VENTURA V. TITAN SPORTS, INC.
65 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a case involving the famous ex-Governor of Minnesota, Jesse the Body Ventura. Titan (D) and Ventura (P) sought review of a court order which held that P could recover in quantum meruit and denied P's request for prefiling interest, respectively.
FACTS: During July 1984, D entered into a licensing agreement with LJN Toys authorizing LJN Toys to manufacture dolls using the images of WWF wrestlers. D also entered a 'master licensing' agreement with DIC Enterprises that resulted in WWF T-shirts, trading cards, calendars, a computer game and numerous other items. In December 1984, D entered into a licensing agreement with A & H Video Sales (d/b/a Coliseum Video) for the production of videotapes of WWF matches. Agreements with A & H and Columbia House resulted in the production of approximately ninety videotapes of WWF performances involving P. In the spring of 1984, P began wrestling for D under an oral contract with Vincent McMahon, D's president and sole shareholder. P wrestled for few months, was hurt, convalesced, did color commentary, and then began wrestling again. P terminated his relationship with D by March 1986 in order to pursue an acting career. P returned to wrestling shortly thereafter as a commentator under an oral agreement that made no mention of videotape royalties or licenses. Various deals and negotiations were attempted after P got an agent and then eventually P signed a contract with D that waived royalties, as D's policy was to pay royalties to only feature performers. P worked for D until August 1990 and since that time has worked as a commentator for WCW, D's competitor. P filed an action for royalties for use of his likeness on video tapes produced by D. The original complaint contained causes of action for fraud, misappropriation of publicity rights and quantum meruit. D removed the case to federal court, and the case was tried before a jury. Only a quantum meruit claim was submitted to the jury, but a special verdict form was given to the jury regarding misrepresentation. The jury found that D had defrauded P of $801,333.06 and that P was due another $8,625.60 for exploitation of P's name, voice, or likeness. After the verdict, the court decided that P was not entitled to a jury trial on quantum meruit and vacated the verdict but entered findings of fact that were consistent with the verdict. D appealed and P cross appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment