Case brief
The Private Movie Co., Inc. v. Pamela Lee Anderson et al.
1. What are the facts? The Private Movie Company (Efraim) sued Pamela Lee Anderson for $4.6 million for walking away from oral and written contracts. The defendant (Anderson) claims to have agreed to the contracts on the stipulation that the script would be revised concerning nudity and simulated sex scenes, and upon reading the final script and seeing simulated sex scenes still included, walked out.
2. What is the legal issue? The Private Movie Co. is suing for damages that the defendant caused by not fulfilling the oral and written contracts. The defendant claims that the contracts were only binding if the script was revised to her specifications, and so were void when the changes were not made.
3. What was the court’s decision and reasons? The defendant claims that she gave consent to a script that followed her specifications on nudity and simulated sex scenes, and the final script did not follow these wishes, so she essentially did not consent to the final script, therefore voiding the contract. The court judged in favor of the defendant (Anderson).
4. What are the relevant rules of law?
A. One of the essential elements to the existence of a contract is the consent of the parties. This consent must be freely given, mutual, and communicated by each party to the other. Consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
The Private Movie Co., Inc. v. Pamela Lee Anderson et al.
1. What are the facts? The Private Movie Company (Efraim) sued Pamela Lee Anderson for $4.6 million for walking away from oral and written contracts. The defendant (Anderson) claims to have agreed to the contracts on the stipulation that the script would be revised concerning nudity and simulated sex scenes, and upon reading the final script and seeing simulated sex scenes still included, walked out.
2. What is the legal issue? The Private Movie Co. is suing for
1. What are the facts? The Private Movie Company (Efraim) sued Pamela Lee Anderson for $4.6 million for walking away from oral and written contracts. The defendant (Anderson) claims to have agreed to the contracts on the stipulation that the script would be revised concerning nudity and simulated sex scenes, and upon reading the final script and seeing simulated sex scenes still included, walked out.
2. What is the legal issue? The Private Movie Co. is suing for damages that the defendant caused by not fulfilling the oral and written contracts. The defendant claims that the contracts were only binding if the script was revised to her specifications, and so were void when the changes were not made.
3. What was the court’s decision and reasons? The defendant claims that she gave consent to a script that followed her specifications on nudity and simulated sex scenes, and the final script did not follow these wishes, so she essentially did not consent to the final script, therefore voiding the contract. The court judged in favor of the defendant (Anderson).
4. What are the relevant rules of law?
A. One of the essential elements to the existence of a contract is the consent of the parties. This consent must be freely given, mutual, and communicated by each party to the other. Consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
The Private Movie Co., Inc. v. Pamela Lee Anderson et al.
1. What are the facts? The Private Movie Company (Efraim) sued Pamela Lee Anderson for $4.6 million for walking away from oral and written contracts. The defendant (Anderson) claims to have agreed to the contracts on the stipulation that the script would be revised concerning nudity and simulated sex scenes, and upon reading the final script and seeing simulated sex scenes still included, walked out.
2. What is the legal issue? The Private Movie Co. is suing for