Moving Picture World (Sep-Oct 1925)

October 10, 1925 M O V I N'G PICTURE WORLD 459 M. P. T. O. A. Will Endorse Hays Contract If Found to Be Equitable , Says Seider A i t «i ^ui:iraniBmiiioiHMiiuiiiiiffliiBffliiiisfflniiui!ii»iiii!nii™uiiimiiii:tuini!ra! But Exhibitor Arbitration Chief Cites Buried = Clause Secretly Appended to Prese nt Contract” as “IntentionalFraud” to “Hoodwink” Owners — Incorporates Charge in Letter to Hays By Tom Waller ^ / TF the contract they are preparing is fair and equitable we will be the first I to endorse it,” commented Joseph M. Seider on the report that the Hays 1. organization is soon to present to the industry a formula as told on another page of this issue of Moving Picture World. But in the same breath the chairman of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America’s committee on arbitration and contract, who recently presented to the film world a contract form of his own, termed as “despicable propaganda” and “intentional fraud” what he described to be a “hidden clause secretly appended to the uniform contract now in use.” “The Hays organization expected sales resistance because of the campaign of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners for a fair contract. To overcome this it is my opinion they inserted this clause,” Seider told Moving Picture World. The chairman of the arbitration and contract committee said that the clause was buried in such a way as to be wholly inconspicuous unless the exhibitor carefully read over a contract form with which, in most cases, he would believe was entirely an “old story” and one which he had read until he had almost memorized it. Seider showed the writer two filled in contracts. Both were made out in August of this year and were two of over fifty cases in which he claimed his investigation had proven the exhibitors were unaware of the so-called new clause. This clause reads : This contract and each and every term and condition hereof except number of pictures, rental price and play date herein specified shall be deemed amended, modified, added to and or abrogated by the terms and conditions of the proposed new Uniform Exhibition Contract, if and when finally adopted and approved by the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc., in so far as the terms and conditions of such new Uniform Exhibition Contract shall or may be in consistent with or additional to the terms and conditions hereof, and the provisions, terms and conditions of such new' Uniform Exhibition Contract when so adopted and approved' shall be deemed to be incorporated herewith to form a part hereof and to be binding upon the parties hereunder. Seider today, September 30, announced that he has written to Will Hays about this clause. The text of this letter appears in full later in this story. When the World questioned him about the clause and when it first made its appearance in contracts he stated : “They employed much secrecy in the inserting of this clause. In not one of over fifty cases I have investigated has the distributor told the exhibitor that he inserted a new clause. “The purpose is obvious. Where the exhibitor would object to the contract and insist upon a fair contract or the contract composed by us the distributor would be in a position to point out that it was the purpose of this clause to provide for the new contract in the event our proposed contract would be accepted by the Hays organization thereby giving the inference that it would be accepted.” At this point Seider declared the clause apparently was inserted to “hoodwink the exhibitor into believing it was the contract proposed by the M. P. T. O. that was the new form referred to.” “They have however kept the door open through the ambiguity of the clause,” he continued, “so as to positively not recognize our proposed contract and to substitute any contract of their own. “The clause is so constructed that at first glance, particularly to the layman, it gives the impression that it is intended for the benefit of the exhibitor. The opposite, however, is the case. “Under the terms of the clause the exhibitor obligates himself to accept any contract in any form that the distributor wishes to force upon him, even to the extent of so ridiculous and confiscating a provision as the demand for a deposit of any sum of money without limitation. “Nothing short of a fraud has been practised on the exhibitor in this case.” Seider’s letter to Will Hays is as follows : Hon. Will H. Hays, President. Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. 46i> Fifth Avenue, New York City. Dear General Hays: You, no doubt, are aware of the fact that the members of your organization, without advice to their customers, have added a clause to the exhibition contracts that they enter into with theatre owners as follows: ‘‘This contract and each and every term and condition hereof, except the matter set forth in the Schedule, shall be deemed amended, modified, added to and, or abrogated by the terms and conditions of the proposed new uniform exhibition contract if and when finally adopted and approved by Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc., insofar as the terms and conditions of such new uniform exhibition contract shall or may be inconsistent with or additional to the terms and conditions hereof, and the provisions, terms and conditions of such new uniform contract, when so adopted and approved, shall be deemed to be incorporated herewith, to form a part hereof and to he binding upon the i»arties hereto.” Pettijohn’s Reply j When questioned about what Joseph § 1 M. Seider calls the “buried clause g 1 secretly appended to the uniform con 1 1 tract,” C. C. Pettijohn of the Hays 1 g office, said that it clearly conveys its M M message. J_ “It is our contract, of course, that the g {§ clause refers to. The clause was put g. j§ in by some companies in anticipation of 1 M changes. We do not know anything g §f about' Seider’s' contract. We have not g 1 read it. We are interested in our own 1 g contract. This contract is practically B g completed. We have already prepared S= rough drafts of it and have submitted g g it to some of the distributors and ex g i bibitors for consideration by their at g 3 torneys.” . . g We can call it nothing but fraud when a distributor adds a clause to a contract that contains in bold! faced type the words, “UNIFORM EXHIBITION CONTRACT.” thereby leading his customer to believe that the contract that he is signing is the so-called Uniform Contract without change from the form that you have promulgated. The clause is so drawn that it W'ould give the impression upon a first reading that the proposed new uniform exliibiton contract referred to is the form of contract proposed by us and it is only after a careful reading that it becomes apparent that it refers to a contract that your organization is obviously preparing. We have no objection to your organization ignoring our proposed form and instead preparing one from your own viewpoint. On the .contrary, we will welcome a contract drawn by you that is fair to both sides. We must, however, protest, on behalf of our membership, against this newly added clause. Through this clause an exhibitor agrees in advance to accept a contract, the terms of which are unknown to him. Your members require of the exhibitors to sig-n a check in blank for your organization to fill in the amount and the payee. We have tried very hard, but in vain, to find a reason for this action other than an effort hy your organization to overcome sales resistance because of the demand of the theatre owners for a fair contract to forestall the acceptance of our proposed contract by the Independent Motion Picture Association of America anti to provide against a possible decision adverse to the form of contract now in use by your members. In the event a decision is rendered, holding the present contract inequitable, we assume it is the intention of your members to substitute a new form for the present one and this clause makes it possible for you to do so. You purpose, thereby to make valid the present contracts, which we claim are invalid because they lack mutuality. We can characterize this procedure in no other way than unethical, unjust and strategy. Sincerely yours, Joseph 31. Seider, Chairman, Contract & Arbitration Committee. 3IOTION PICTURE THEATRE OWNERS OF ABIERICA. BIG THEATRE FOR SEATTLE Harry C. Arthur, Jr., as president of Washington State Theatres, Inc., a subsidiary of the Motion Picture Capital Corporation, has announced definite plans for the immediate construction of a big down town moving picture theatre on the site of the old Hippodrome, Seattle, Wash.