We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
ADVERTISING MATTER, PROGRAMS, BILL-POSTERS 231
length of a theatrical season, the jury was permitted to determine what period constituted such a season.23 A failure to give the specified number of performances makes the owner of the theatre liable under the contract.24
Where the performance of the contract “ depends upon
tre, to occupy one inch on program page for the theatre season. Season 1886, 1887.
“Anna P. Hoxsie.”
Held that this was an entire contract, and where the Fifth Avenue Theatre closed first, the contract was terminated at that time and defendant was liable only up to that time.
23 Strafford v. Stetson (1910) , 41 Pa. Sup. Ct. 560. The contract was:
"Insert our advertisement in the Kieth’s Chestnut Street Theatre programme for the (no other piano house ad. but Blasius & Sons) theatrical season of 1902 and 1903, to occupy space of opposite page 4, on page, for which we agree to pay ten dollars per week payable every four weeks.” Properly submitted to the jury as to the length of the “theatrical season of 1902 and 1903.”
u Strauss v. Hammerstein (1912), 152 A. D. (N. Y.) 128; 136 N. Y. Supp. 613. Defendant granted to plaintiff the exclusive
license to circulate programs in defendant’s theatre for a specified period; paragraph second provided that there would be given six performances a week for twenty consecutive weeks in each year, plaintiff agreeing to pay a specified sum per performance; the contract further provided that if the giving of grand opera should be discontinued, the plaintiff should at its option have all the program rights with respect to such other performances as might be given at the theatre. Held that the agreement contained in paragraph second was absolute and unqualified and that upon defendant’s failure to give the specified number of performances for the period therein stated plaintiff could maintain action for the breach of the contract, subject, however, to this: that if plaintiff availed itself of its option and furnished program at performances other than that of grand opera, it could not then recover for a breach of paragraph second.