Lexplug logoLexplug

Blaustein v. Burton

California Court of Appeal
Cal.App.3d 160 (1970)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An idea that is not novel or concrete can still be the subject of an implied-in-fact contract if the idea is disclosed by the purveyor to a recipient with the expectation of payment if the idea is used, and the recipient, knowing of this condition, accepts the disclosure and then uses the idea.


Facts:

  • Julian Blaustein, a motion picture producer, conceived an idea to film Shakespeare's 'The Taming of the Shrew' starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor Burton.
  • Blaustein's concept included specific creative elements, such as hiring Franco Zeffirelli as director, filming in Italy, and adding key scenes that occur off-stage in the original play.
  • On April 6, 1964, Blaustein presented his idea to the Burtons' agent, Hugh French, conditioning the discussion on their potential interest and availability.
  • After securing interest from Zeffirelli, Blaustein met directly with the Burtons on June 30, 1964, and explained his entire concept to them.
  • The Burtons expressed strong enthusiasm, with Richard Burton stating, 'let’s plan to go ahead now,' and agreeing to Blaustein's choice of Zeffirelli as director.
  • Richard Burton instructed Blaustein to work out the formal arrangements with their attorney, and the meeting concluded with a mutual understanding they would work together.
  • Later, a motion picture of 'The Taming of the Shrew' was produced, starring the Burtons and directed by Zeffirelli, which incorporated the key creative elements Blaustein had disclosed.
  • Blaustein was not engaged as the producer for the film and received no compensation or credit for his ideas or services.

Procedural Posture:

  • Julian Blaustein filed a complaint in a state trial court against Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor Burton (the Burtons) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims.
  • After depositions were taken, the Burtons filed a motion for summary judgment.
  • Blaustein filed an affidavit and deposition testimony in opposition to the motion.
  • The trial court granted the Burtons' motion for summary judgment.
  • Blaustein's motion for reconsideration was denied, and a final judgment was entered in favor of the Burtons.
  • Blaustein (appellant) appealed the summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Can an implied-in-fact contract to pay for the use of an idea be formed when a producer discloses a detailed movie concept to actors who express enthusiasm, agree to the producer's creative choices, instruct him to proceed with arrangements, and subsequently use the core of the concept without compensating the producer?


Opinions:

Majority - Frampton, J.

Yes, an implied-in-fact contract to pay for the use of an idea can be formed under these circumstances. Citing Desny v. Wilder, the court explained that while ideas are not property, they can be the subject of a contract. An implied-in-fact contract arises from conduct, and one can be formed if an idea purveyor conditions disclosure upon an obligation to pay for its use, and the offeree, knowing of the condition before disclosure, voluntarily accepts and uses the idea. Here, Blaustein's conduct in pitching the idea as a professional project, coupled with the Burtons' enthusiastic response, their instruction to 'go ahead,' and their subsequent use of the idea's core elements, creates a triable issue of fact as to whether such an agreement was formed. The court emphasized that an idea need not be novel or concrete to serve as consideration for a contract, so the fact that Shakespeare's play was in the public domain is not a defense.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms and clarifies the principles of Desny v. Wilder, solidifying that idea submission claims in the entertainment industry are governed by contract law, not property law. It establishes that the novelty of an idea is irrelevant to its contractual protection, preventing idea recipients from using public domain elements as a shield against claims of an implied contract. The case is significant for creators because it lowers the barrier to surviving summary judgment, ensuring that disputes over implied agreements based on conduct and oral representations will often be decided by a jury rather than being dismissed pre-trial. This encourages fairer dealings in creative negotiations, as it holds parties accountable for actions that imply a promise to pay for valuable ideas.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Blaustein v. Burton (1970)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"