Brief Tamarind Lithography v. Sanders

Brief Tamarind Lithography v. Sanders - History The trial...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cameron Hartman 11/03/09 Seat # 59 TAMARIND LITHOGRAPHY WORKSHOP v. SANDERS Facts: The plaintiff, Sanders, put large amounts of time and works into a film – including  directing the film, acting as a production manager, and exercising artistic control over the film.  Sanders and Tamarind Lithography Workshop (Tamarind), the defendant, had a contract which  provided Sanders would be entitled to a screen credit.  The film, then titled “Four Stones for  Kanemitsu” did not feature Sander’s credit. Sanders then sued for breach of contract, specific  performance of the contract to give him credit for the film, and defamation. Tamarind responded  by suing for damages for breach of contract, emotional distress, defamation, and fraud.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: History: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Sanders. Issue: Is the award of damages an adequate remedy in lieu of specific performance? Decision: The California Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Sanders for specific performance. Reasons: The nonappearance of Sander’s name in the credits of this film, without doubt, resulted in a loss of valued publicity. The remedy at hand is impossible to perform because it would be quite difficult to quantify this in monetary terms. Also, Sanders fully performed his contractual obligations by releasing the claims of copyright to the film; thus, the court permitted enforcement of the respondent’s performance as promised....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online