The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Nov-Dec 1922)

December 9, 1922. THE FILM RENTER ¢& MOVING PICTURE NEWS. 39 THE EXHIBITOR’S CONTRACT MUST COME (By WM. HY. _HUISH.) HAVE been inspired to write this article in consequence of the present unsatisfactory conditions being introduced by certain renting houses with regard to — the form of contract the exhibitor is being asked to sign by these particular renters. I have been informed that the general secretary of the C.E.A. has also found it necessary to write each of the branches, warning the members with regard to this matter, and advising them to carefully scrutinise any new form of contract they are asked to sign. This question of a contract between renter and exhibitor, for the past twelve years, has been one that has caused a great denl of discussion in trade circles, and the many attempts that have been made in the past to secure an agreed form of contract have failed... Those of us who were connected with the industry when the first form of contract was introduced by Messrs. Pathé Fréres well remember the indignation felt throughout the trade by the introduction of this new system of completing a bargain between renter and exhibitor, There was a mass meeting of the trade held at the Waldorf Hotel, London, and my old chief, the late Dr. KR. T. Jupp, took a very prominent part in the organisation of that meeting. No one who knew Dr. Jupp would consider him anything but a fair-minded and honourable man, and at the time he was supported in the attitude he had adopted towards this contract, both by exhibitors and renters. The view he took was that a renter, whom he placed in’ the same category as an wholesale agent in) any commercial business, bad no right to dictate the terms upon which the exhibitor or retailer should purchase his goods. I remember quite well that the main objection to the Pathé Fréres contract was, in consequence, the enormous number of conditions contained therein, most of these conditions being entirely in favour of the renter, and it was considered at the time to be anything but an equitable contract. Previous to the introduction of the Pathé Fréres’ contract, exhibitor and renter conducted their business in a far more satisfactory manner than prevails to-day, and the industry was saved the indignity of having its dirty linen washed in the public courts. In those early days of the industry it was recognised by the commercial men connected with it, that although the system of acceptance by letter an] other methods then adopted had worked satisfactorily amongst those then connected with the industry, it was felt that the time had arrived when some simple form of contract beween renter and exhibitor might be introduced. There was an attempt made on behalf of the few renting houses then in existence to agree to a standard form of contract, but very soon after this attempt had been made the American firms commenced to open their own offices in this country, with the result that each firm introduced its own form of contract, and the exhibitor who desired to do business with these particular firms was asked to sign these contract forms. We now come to the birth of the first agreed contract between the two sections of the trade, which was named by those responsible for its existence, ‘‘ The Model Contract.’’ This form of contract was drafted by a sub-committee appointed by the K.R.S, and (.E.A., and after it had been approved of by the executives of both these organisations, it became the recognised __ form of contract between renter and exhibitor. © During the Google negotiation of this particular form of contract, there was a great deal of discussion on two very important clauses: ‘* The paying of carriage both ways by the exhibitor,’ and the “Signing of the contract simultaneously.’’ The renter would not give way on the carriage question, and the only agreement that seemed to influence the committee was that put forward by a very prominent renter, who stated ‘ that if the renter paid the carriage one way, the ertra charge involved would be such that it would rob them of a large portion of their profit.” . The sume renter expressed the following view with regard to the signing of the contract simultaneously: ‘ Hiring films is not like selling goods at fired prices, and to give a free hand to a film traveller to sign contracts would be too dangerous.” T will leave my readers to read between the lines and judge for themselves the mentality of the Joint Committee of exhibitors and renters who allowed themselves to be influenced by such weak arguments. The contract did not, as is well known to the trade, prove a very ‘‘ model ’’ one, as there was a great deal of litigation between renters and exhibitors arising cut of the signing of this contract, and in Lancashire we had a good many cases tried before Judge Mellor and other County Court Judges and the Vice-Chancellor in the Chancery Court. In every one of these cases the contract was held up to ridicule, and I have been told by legal gentlemen over and over again that they had never in all their experience seen a more onesided contract, and it was at all times referred to us the ‘ renters’ contract.” In 1920 there was a further attempt made to come to some agreement on this contract question. The same old arguments were put forward, and a strong fight put up in favour of the contract being signed simultaneously, and the carriage question Was again a great bone of contention. The outcome of these negotiations were the agreements that were eome to at the C.F.A. Conference at Southampton when the standard form of contract of September 23, 1920, came into being. We all know the many difficulties experienced by exhibitors under this contract, which, in the opinion of many, was aguin a renters’ contract. The time has now arrived for the exhibitors to try their hand at framing a contract that will be perfectly equitable to both exhibitor and renter. There are a number of exhibitors in the North who are firmly of the opinion that it is the exhibitor who should provide the contract in the same wav as is done in other sections of the entertainment industry. The Stockport Entertainments Proprietors’ Association some time ago took a very firm stand on this contract question. As a result of their action, a sub-committee consisting of several well-known exhibitors, have taken, this matter in hand, and at the present time, so far as Lancashire is concerned, there is every prospect of an agreement being come to on this important question. Providing the interests of the renter are safeguarded in the form of contract now being drafted by this committee, IT see no reason why it should not be acceptable to every reiter, The man who pays the piper usually has the privileye of calling the tune,.and, as the reaters in the past have failed to satisfy the exhibitor with the model and standard form of contraet, I think the exhibitor should have the privilege of having his own form of contract.