HOLLYWOOD FANTASY CORPORIATION V. GABOR
151 F.3d 203 (1998)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Gabor (D) appealed a decision awarding Hollywood (P) $100,000 on a
breach of contract claim, plus attorney fees and post judgment interest.
FACTS: P charged each vacation 'client' $ 7,500 for a week of 'pampering,' instruction on
making movies, rehearsals, and a 'starring' role in a short videotaped film with a
'nationally known' television or movie star. P hoped that 'bloopers' and 'outtakes' from the
videotapes would ultimately become the basis for a television series. P had conducted only
one vacation event before the package scheduled to take place in San Antonio in May 1991.
The first event, held in Palm Springs, California, had received some media coverage, but had
lost money. P negotiated with D over an appearance in San Antonio. P alleged an agreement
and D claimed there was none. In any event, D sent a telegram to invoke the out clause
claiming that she was due to be involved in preproduction and a promotion film for a motion
picture Queen of Justice produced by Metro Films of Los Angeles. P unsuccessfully attempted
to replace D for the San Antonio event. The San Antonio event was cancelled; the two ticket
purchasers received their money back; P went out of business; and this litigation began.
Following a default judgment on liability and a jury trial on damages, the jury awarded P
$3,000,000. The district court entered final judgment in that amount. D moved to set aside
the judgment on the ground that she did not receive notice of the docket call. The district
court granted D's motion to vacate the judgment and ordered a new trial. After a second
trial, the jury awarded Hollywood Fantasy $100,000 on its breach of contract claim and
$100,000 on its fraud claim. The district court set aside the jury's fraud verdict on the
ground that P had failed to show any fraudulent inducement or material misrepresentation.
The district court found that a contract did exist between P and D rejecting D's argument
that her handwritten changes to the March 4, 1991 letter materially modified and rejected
P's offer. The district court also upheld the jury's finding that Ms. Gabor's cancellation
was not based on 'a significant acting opportunity in a film,' as the contract permitted. D
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.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment