ContractsProf Blog

Former Attorney Sues Stephen King

As reported here by the BloombergBusinessweek, Jay Kramer, former attorney for master of horror, Stephen King, filed suit in New York’s Supreme Court against the author’s agents, Arthur B. Greene and Susan Greene of the Arthur B. Greene Literary Agency, alleging conversion of commissions for work performed, breach of contract, quantum merit/unjust enrichment, and tortious interference.

Stephen King's Very Spooky House in Bangor, ME

 

Kramer was fired on March 30th after having worked for Mr. King for thirty years.  He alleges that the defendants have withheld his commission for several projects that he helped broker, including film and television production projects based on King's writings: Secret Window, The Stand, and 1408, among others.   Kramer alleges that after he was fired, the Greenes “jointly and severally began diverting the sums owed to [him] to their own account.”  Kramer is asking for $1 million in damages.

[Christina Phillips & JT]

New in Print

Kenneth S. Corts, The Interaction of Implicit and Explicit Contracts in Construction and Procurement Contracting. 28 J.L. Econ. & Org. 550 (2012)

Carolyn L. Dessin, Arbitrability and Vulnerability, 21 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 349 (2012) 

Maj. Sean Elameto, U.S. Air Force, Guarding the Guardians: Accountability in Qui Tam Litigation under the Civil False Claims Act, 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 813 (2012)

Philip S. Hadji, Death Benefits for Servicemembers: A Case Study on the Department of Veterans Affairs and Its Life Insurance Contract, 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 777 (2012). 

Chunlin Leonard,The Unbearable Lightness of Consent in Contract Law, 63 Case West. L. Rev. 57 (2012)

Maj. Airon A. Mothershed, U.S. Air Force. The $435 Hammer and the $600 Toilet Seat Scandals: Does Media Coverage of Procurement Scandals Lead to Procurement Reform? 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 855 (2012)

Maj. William Charles Moorhouse, U.S. Army, Expediency at the Expense of Governmental Propriety: Personal Service Contractors in the Procurement Office. 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 917 (2012)

Nicholas Sanders, A Response to Ryan P. Carpenter's The bottom of the Smart Weapon Production Chain: Securing the Supply of Rare Earth Elements for the U.S. Military, 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 957 (2012)

Alexander Stremitzer, Opportunistic Termination, 28 J.L. Econ. & Org. 381 (2012)

Maj. John Bryan Warnock, U.S. Air Force, Principled or Practical Responsibility: Sixty Years of Discussion, 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 916 (2012) 

[JT]

Alleged Former Manager's Claims against Britney Spears Dismissed

Sam Lufti, former self-proclaimed manager to Britney Spears (left), filed suit against the “Baby One More Time” pop-star for breach of contract, against her father for assault and battery, and against her mother for defamation. Lutfi alleges he had a multi-year contract with the singer that entitled him to 15% of her income. However, as reported here by the New York Daily News, Lufti was unable to recall ever telling a single person that Spears promised to pay him 15% of her income, nor was he able to produce an adequate written contract. He could only provide a form contract that  he downloaded from the internet, which he claimed he had used to make an oral agreement with Ms. Spears.

As reported on Fox News here, the suit was dismissed on Friday as Mr. Lufti was able to make out any of his claims against Ms. Spears or her parents.

[Christina Phillips & JT]

Weekly Top Tens from the Social Science Research Network

RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) 
TOP 10 Papers for Journal of Contracts & Commercial Law eJournal 
September 6, 2012 to November 5, 2012

Rank	Downloads	Paper Title
1	239	Queues in Law  Ronen Perry, Tal Zarsky,  University of Haifa - Faculty of Law, University of Haifa - Faculty of Law
2	147	Seduction by Contract: Law, Economics and Psychology in Consumer Markets - Introduction  Oren Bar-Gill,  New York University (NYU) - School of Law
3	143	Rethinking the Nature of the Firm: The Corporation as a Governance Object  Peer Zumbansen,  York University - Osgoode Hall Law School
4	134	Express Contract Terms and the Implied Contractual Covenant of Delaware Law  Mohsen Manesh,  University of Oregon School of Law,  Date posted to database: September 25, 2012  Last Revised: September 30, 2012
5	130	Another Step Towards Harmonization in EU Contract Law: The Common European Sales Law  Maud Piers, Cedric Vanleenhove,  Ghent University, Ghent University
6	121	When Nudges Fail: Slippery Defaults  Lauren E. Willis,  Loyola Law School Los Angeles
7	94	Intellectual Property and Agriculture: The Case on Soybeans and Monsanto  Marcelo Dias Varella, Marcelo Dias Varella,  University Center of Brasilia, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
8	79	Moving Beyond Naïve Foreclosure Analysis  Joshua D. Wright,  George Mason University - School of Law, Faculty
9	76	Consequences of An Ineffective Agreement to Use the Common European Sales Law  Caroline Harvey, Michael Schillig,  University of Oxford, University of London - King's College London
10	67	Mass Procedures as a Form of 'Regulatory Arbitration' – Abaclat v. Argentine Republic and the International Investment Regime  S.I. Strong,  University of Missouri School of Law

RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) 
TOP 10 Papers for Journal of LSN: Contracts (Topic)  
September 6, 2012 to November 5, 2012

Rank	Downloads	Paper Title
1	143	Rethinking the Nature of the Firm: The Corporation as a Governance Object  Peer Zumbansen,  York University - Osgoode Hall Law School
2	134	Express Contract Terms and the Implied Contractual Covenant of Delaware Law  Mohsen Manesh,  University of Oregon School of Law
3	130	Another Step Towards Harmonization in EU Contract Law: The Common European Sales Law  Maud Piers, Cedric Vanleenhove,  Ghent University, Ghent University
4	121	When Nudges Fail: Slippery Defaults  Lauren E. Willis,  Loyola Law School Los Angeles
5	110	Harmonization of Private International Law in Europe and Application of Foreign Law: The Madrid Principles of 2010  Carlos Esplugues,  University of Valencia - Faculty of Law
6	79	Moving Beyond Naïve Foreclosure Analysis  Joshua D. Wright,  George Mason University - School of Law, Faculty
7	66	Lexis Nexus Complexus: Comparative Contract Law and International Accounting Collide in the IASB-FASB Revenue Recognition Exposure Draft  Kurt S. Schulzke, Gerlinde Berger-Walliser, Pier Luigi Marchini,  Kennesaw State University, University of Connecticut, University of Parma - Department of Economics
8	63	Lewellyn Slept Here: A Short History of Sticky Contracts and Feudalism  Cheryl B. Preston, Eli McCann,  Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School, Unaffiliated Authors - affiliation not provided to SSRN
9	60	The Subprime Mortgage Crisis and Economic Checks and Balances  Chunlin Leonhard,  Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
10	56	Misrepresentation: The Restatement's Second Mistake  Stephanie R. Hoffer,  Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

 

[JT]

Contracts Limerick of the Week: Special Guest Poet, Chris Osborn

This week we have a guest blogger, Chris Osborn (pictured), a relative newcomer to the world of contracts profs, but already setting cases to Limericks.  Below is Chris's summary of Hooters of America v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933 (4^th Cir. 1999).

In Phillips, a waitress employed at a Hooters restaurant in Myrtle Beach, SC reported to her manager that she had been sexually harassed by the local franchise owner’s brother.  Ms. Phillips claimed that the manager responded that she should “let it go,” whereupon she resigned and retained counsel.  When her attorney contacted the franchisor, Hooters of America, Inc. (Hooters), and gave notice of the claim, Hooters invoked an arbitration clause in an employment agreement that the claimant had signed several years after she was hired.  Hooters then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court and a motion to enjoin the plaintiff from filing suit (which was treated as a motion to compel arbitration).  

In opposing the motion, Ms. Phillips contended that the arbitration clause was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, was unconscionable, and was not supported by consideration.   The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina found the arbitration clause unenforceable, holding inter alia that since the clause was not contained in her initial employment contract, it had to be supported by some additional consideration.  The court then examined the mutual promise to arbitrate unenforceable.  In particular, the court found that the arbitration Rules & Procedures bound the employee but gave the employer alone the right to terminate the agreement to arbitrate at any time on 30 days’ notice.  Moreover, the Rules and Procedures also held the employer to significantly less onerous pleading, discovery, and trial procedures.  Accordingly, the court ruled that Hooters’ promise to arbitrate was illusory (which makes it reminiscent of another case recently reduced to a Limerick, Vassilkovska), and thus it could not serve as consideration for the employee’s promise to submit her claims to arbitration.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Here are the (three!) Limericks:

When Miss Phillips, crying conduct discriminatory
Sought redress for her boss’ tomfoolery
            Her employer said, “Wait,
            You made a promise to arbitrate!”
But the court ruled the whole thing illusory.

“When harassed on the job (wouldn’t ya know?)
A young Hooter’s girl could not “let it go….”
            When the restaurant stalled,
            The court was appalled
“Was there any consideration here?  No. “

When a harassed young waitress brought suit
Her employer did not give a hoot
            It tried to stay litigation
            And demand arbitration
But the court ruled the sham clause was moot.

[JT]