Parker v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. 89 Cal.Rptr. 737, 474 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1970)
Shirley MacLaine had been contracted to be in a musical for $750k. The studio decided not to make the movie. o The studio offered MacLaine a different movie at the same salary. MacLaine felt the job offers were not equivalent, and sued for breach of contract. There was no issue of breach. It was simply a question of damages (summary judgment was granted). Trial court decided that the jobs were not equivalent and awarded MacLaine the entire salary ($750k). o Summary judgment is used when the facts are not in dispute. There is only a dispute on the law. The Appellate Court affirmed. They found that the employee has to make reasonable efforts to find new work, which they believe MacClaine did. Dissenting opinion on whether or not the different movie was equivalent, and if so, whether not taking the job means that reasonable efforts were not taken. o The job was for the same salary, and possibly comparable. The court found that they weren't since the movie genre was different and the location was different. The dissent argued that although the movies were different, the job was the same. o Trivial differences in jobs are generally not considered enough, since no two jobs are exactly the same. o Since in the dissenting opinion, there was an issue of fact (whether the jobs were equivalent), summary judgment was not warranted.
Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0