Just a Bit More Acceptance; Termination of Offers Contracts – Prof. Merges Feb. 14, 2011.
K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
2
Transcript of K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.
![Page 1: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
K Interpretation
Prof. Merges
Contracts – 3.15.2011
![Page 2: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Extrinsic evidence
• What is this? What does it mean?
![Page 3: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Greenfield v Philles Records Inc.
• Procedural history
• Facts
![Page 4: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Ronettes
![Page 5: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
What is the cause of action?
![Page 7: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
What is the cause of action?
• Breach of K: Defendant has no right to license songs for movies (“synch rights”), and owes plaintiffs royalties on new releases of old songs
![Page 8: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
What language in the K is at issue?
![Page 9: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
“All recordings made hereunder and all records and reproductions made therefrom . . ., shall be entirely [Philles’] property . . . . Without limitation of the foregoing, [Philles] shall have the right to make phonograph records, tape recordings, or other reproductions of the performances embodied in such recordings by any method now or hereafter known . . . .”
![Page 10: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Holding
![Page 11: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Holding
• “Because there is no ambiguity in the terms of the Ronettes’ agreement, defendants are entitled to exercise complete ownership rights, subject to payment of applicable royalties due plaintiffs . . .”
• Extrinsic evidence; “personal notions of fairness and equity” – p. 389
![Page 12: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
WWW Assocs. v. Giancontieri
• Why is evidence inadmissible when an agreement is unambiguous on its face?
• How do you know when an agreement is unambiguous?
![Page 13: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
What was the deal in Giancontieri?
• $750,000 for 2 acre parcel
• Senior citizen home development
![Page 14: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
What was the deal in Giancontieri?
• $750,000 for 2 acre parcel
• Terms:“litigation cancellation” provision10 day cancellation provisionExtrinsic evidence: Only for plaintiff’s
benefit: defendant could not cancel
![Page 15: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Trident Center v. Conn. Gen. Life
• History
• Facts
![Page 16: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
History
![Page 18: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
History
• Not only did Def. win, but plaintiff was sanctioned . . . .!
![Page 19: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
What language was at issue?
![Page 20: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
What language was at issue?
“[Trident] shall not have the right to prepay the principal amount hereof in whole or in part before January 1996.”
K signed 1983
![Page 21: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Trial court
• Easy case
• No ambiguity here
![Page 22: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
9th Circuit
• Trident seeks to offer extrinsic evidence on the “true agreement of the parties” which allowed Trident to prepay the loan at any time
• This evidence cannot be barred under California law
![Page 23: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Damning by following?
• What is Kozinski up to here?
• Or “the rule of law”/judicial restraint in action?
![Page 25: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
What was Trident’s 2nd argument?
“in the event of a prepayment resulting from a default hereunder or the Deed of Trust prior to January 10, 1996 the prepayment fee will be ten percent (10%).”
![Page 26: K Interpretation Prof. Merges Contracts – 3.15.2011.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062407/56649d385503460f94a11db1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
What about this?
“in the event of a prepayment resulting from a default hereunder on the Deed of Trust prior to January 10, 1996 the prepayment fee will be ten percent (10%).”