Autry v. Republic Productions, Inc.
1947 Cal. LEXIS 157, 180 P.2d 888, 30 Cal. 2d 144 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When performance of a personal services contract becomes temporarily impossible, the duty to perform is discharged, not merely suspended, if performance after the impossibility ceases would impose a substantially greater burden upon the promisor. Additionally, if the parties expressly contract to agree upon new terms in the event of such a contingency, their failure to agree will result in the termination of their original obligations.
Facts:
- On September 22, 1938, actor Gene Autry entered into a multi-year employment contract with producer Republic Productions, Inc. (Republic).
- The contract gave Republic a series of one-year options to extend the agreement annually.
- By 1942, Republic had exercised three options, extending the contract into 1943.
- On May 11, 1942, the parties signed a supplementary agreement containing a clause (paragraph 24) stating that if Autry entered military service, they would 'agree upon their mutual rights and obligations'.
- On July 26, 1942, Autry enlisted in the United States Army, with five photoplays still unperformed under the current option period.
- After Autry's enlistment, the parties attempted to negotiate new terms for their relationship both during and after his service but failed to reach an agreement.
- While Autry was in the service, Republic purported to exercise its remaining options and notified Autry that it was extending the contract for a period equal to his military service.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 17, 1944, Autry served Republic Productions with a notice of termination of their agreements.
- On June 27, 1944, Autry (plaintiff) filed an action for declaratory relief against Republic Productions (defendant) in the trial court to determine the legal status of their contracts.
- The trial court rendered a judgment declaring that the contracts were not terminated but were merely suspended for the duration of Autry's military service.
- The trial court ruled that Autry was obligated to perform the remainder of the contracts after his discharge from the army.
- Autry, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an actor's enlistment in the armed forces during wartime merely suspend his personal services contract, obligating him to complete performance after discharge, when the contract contains a clause requiring the parties to agree upon their mutual obligations in such an event and they fail to reach a new agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Shenk, J.
No. An actor's enlistment in the armed forces terminates the personal services contract under these circumstances, rather than merely suspending it. The court's reasoning rests on two primary grounds. First, paragraph 24 of the 1942 agreement, which required the parties to agree on new terms in the event of military service, demonstrated their intent to abrogate the original terms upon that contingency. Although an 'agreement to agree' is unenforceable, the clause's existence shows the parties did not intend for a mere suspension and automatic revival. Their subsequent failure to agree meant no contractual obligations remained. Second, even under the doctrine of temporary impossibility, the contract would be discharged because delayed performance would impose a substantially greater burden on Autry. The court determined as a matter of law that the loss of several peak years of an artistic career, coupled with the significant decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, constituted a substantial burden that would make it inequitable to revive the contract on its original terms.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its application of contract doctrines like impossibility and frustration to unique personal services contracts, particularly those for artists whose careers are time-sensitive. The court established that a clause requiring future agreement, while unenforceable to compel a new contract, can be interpreted as the parties' intent to terminate existing obligations upon the specified contingency. Furthermore, the ruling broadens the definition of 'substantially greater burden' to include non-monetary factors like the loss of peak career years and economic factors like inflation, providing a more equitable assessment for performers and others in similar time-sensitive professions whose contracts are interrupted by major, long-term events.
Unlock the full brief for Autry v. Republic Productions, Inc.