Assignment 73

Tamarind Lithography Workshop v. Sanders

FACTS:
In March 1969, Sanders agreed in writing to write, direct, and produce a motion
picture for Tamarind. Sanders completed the film, which he directed, authored,
supervised, and exhibited artistic control over. After the film was screened the first
time, a dispute arose between the parties concerning their rights and obligations to
the contract. Litigation on this subject began, but before any judgment was ruled
the parties entered into another written contract which stated that Sanders would
get screen credit A Film by Terry Sanders. Tamarind did not comply with this
agreement. Sanders sought damages in court and was awarded $25,000 by a jury
that found Tamarind had breached the agreement. The court, however, found that
Tamarind had sole ownership rights of the film. Sanders requested specific
performance but was denied, which resulted in this appeal.
ISSUE:
Can Sanders be awarded specific performance?
DECISION:
Sanders is entitled to relief consisting of the damages recovered and an injunction
against further injury.
DISCUSSION:
It is true that legal remedies for Sanders are inadequate because it is difficult to
accurately assess the damages associated with the showing of the film (which may
occur a great many times). The loss of publicity from the film for Sanders is also
difficult to measure in monetary means because public acclaim is almost impossible
to quantify in monetary terms. However, Sanders did fully perform his obligations
of the contract by releasing all claims of copyright to the film. It is also found that
the agreement was sufficiently definite to permit enforcement of Tamarinds
performance as promised. Thus, Sanders is entitled to relief consisting of the
damages recovered and an injunction against further injury.
RULES OF LAW:
When there is no adequate remedy at law in equity, specific performance, a court
decree ordering the breaching party to render the promised performance, can be
awarded.