100%(10)10 out of 10 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 5 pages.
Advanced Entertainment Law Essay #1INTRODUCTIONDoes Mary Asher have any legal ground to sue James Shifty under contract law?The question will be answered in detail throughout this paper. I will be discussing the rules of law to determine her right of compensation. The IRAC essay form (Issue—Rule—Application—Conclusion) will be used to examine this case in its entirety. ISSUETo begin with, About a year ago, a 17-year old and college freshman at FAU, Mary Asher, sent her synopsis of a story for a motion picture that she had written over the summer to James Shifty, in hopethat her story would fund her last three years of college. James Shifty is the Vice President of Production at DreamWorks Pictures, Hollywood, California. A year later, Mary never received any type of response from James, but was surprised to see previews for a new movie produced by DreamWorks Pictures that was identical to her story on the scientists in the arctic. Mary is upset and wants to know her rights of compensation in order to start any legal proceedings againstDreamWorks Pictures. The issue in this case is whether Mary Asher has rights of compensation or is entitled to anything under the eye of the law for contracts.RULENext, as we already know, a valid and enforceable contract consists of six elements which are: an agreement, consisting of an offer and acceptance; consideration; capacity; legal purpose; genuine assent; and writing or documentation, if 1
any (Class Material). An agreement consists of a valid offer and a valid acceptance. An offer must: indicate that the offeror intended to enter into a binding contractual relationship; be sufficiently definite that the courts could ascertain a remedy if the contract is breached; and communicated to the offeree (Class Material).Genuine assent consists of: no duress, undue influence, fraud, or mutual mistake. Under fraud one of crucial is the “knowledge of falsity and intention to deceive.” Which basically means that the misrepresentation must have been known by the one making it to be