The film daily year book of motion pictures (1936)

At the time the contract was signed the salesmen gave a letter (made in duplicate) to the exhibitor, guaranteeing the equipment and providing for its return, if unsatisfactory. The contract provided against acceptance by salesmen and against outside agreements or representations not contained in the contract. The Supreme Court of Utah upheld a judgment of the Trial Court in the exhibitor's favor. COMMENT The Court said the offer was comprised ol both the letter and the contract. Acceptance of only one prevented a meeting of the minds. The Court said that whether the salesmen cheated the exhibitor by telling him both documents constituted the contract or whether he deceived the company by holding back part of the offer, these actions were equally efifective in preventing the necessary meeting of minds upon the subjectmatter to bring into existence a contract binding upon all the parties. The Court said : "The inemorandum signed by the salesmen at the same time the other document was signed was as much a part of the transaction between defendants and the corporation represented by the salesmen as if it had been written thereon, and is as binding as were other items added in the blanks of the printed form." In Bee, Inc., v. Pisor^'^ the Superior Court of Pennsylvania passed upon an action for the price of certain sound equipment claimed to have been bought by an exhibitor through his agent, which the exhibitor denied. The Court held that in such cases it is necessary for the equipment dealer to prove, by competent evidence, purchase of the equipment and the authority to make such purchase by the agent. \n R C A Victor Co. v. Daugherty^"" the Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld a jury verdict favoring an exhibitor's contention that an equipment contract had been altered before she signed it. The equipment company had sued under the contract. Manufacturer and Distributor of Sound Equipment— Contract to Supply Machines — Defenses— Anti-Trust Act — Inability to Perform— Damages In Excelsior Motor Mfg. and Supply Co. V. Sound Equipment Co.)"'' a distributor had been given an exclusive sales agency to sell sound equipment and the equipment company had agreed to make and deliver to the distributor a certain number of equipments complete with sound heads. No machines were ever delivered by the manufacturer. The distributor sued and recovered judgment of over $100,000. The manufacturer appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Illinois which affirmed the judgment. COMMENT The Court held: (1) The fixing of a resale price for the equipment and requiring the distributor not to deal in any competitor's products did not invalidate the contract under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, for, on the contrary, production of a successful machine would have introduced competition against the Western Electric Compan\which held a virtual monopoly. (2) A provision in the contract against claim for damages if failure to perform was "occasioned by fire, strikes, lockouts, or any other cause beyond the control of the party so in default" did not cover the difficulties in perfecting a good "sound on film" device and the maker's inability to furnish such a device, because licenses could not be secured for certain outstanding patents. (3) The contract was for a joint commercial venture which both corporations had the capacity to make. (4) The Court said that the difficulty of accurately ascertaining the damage suffered did not prevent recovery, pointing out that while the distributor was waiting for the machines there was an exceptional demand for them by exhibitors desiring to open with sound and the proof showed the distributor would have sold 67 of the equipments during the period considered. LOTTERY Exhibitor and Grievance Board — Bank Nite — Validity — Injunction In Central States Theater Corp. v. Pats, et al)"^ a. United States Judge in Iowa denied an application for an injunction against enforcement of the code against an exhibitor who was operating Bank Nite under a contract from Affiliated Enterprises, Inc., "on the ground that the advertising scheme which the plaintiff would like to have protected borders on a lottery and does not warrant protection by a court of equity." COMMENT Because Bank Nite has been sweeping the country during the past year, the opinion of the Court will be set out at comparatively great length. The testimony had been that Bank Nite increased business and the exhibitor ran single features on that night for a twohour show, whereas it double featured for a longer show the other nights of the week. The Court said : "From this situation the court finds that the increased attendance indicated by the increase in the net profits from bank night is occasioned solely by the scheme. "It seems to me that under this situation the plaintiff corporation is conducting a lottery. The elements neces=ary to constitute a lottery are: First, a prize; second, a chance; and third, a consideration. The plaintiff corporation admits the first two elements are present, but denies that there is any consideration paid by anyone on the prize itself. "The question or not there is a paid consideration for the opportunity to win a prize necessary to constitute a lottery is a question of fact which 821