Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose
127 F.Supp.2d 117 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two parties enter into a contract with the clear intent to confer a direct benefit upon a third party, that third party has an enforceable right to the benefit, and where no time for performance is specified, the law implies a duty to perform within a reasonable time.
Facts:
- From 1947 to 1960, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC) produced 'The Howdy Doody Show' and owned the puppets used, including the main Howdy Doody puppet.
- After the show ended in 1960, the puppet master, Rufus C. Rose, kept many of the puppets, including Howdy Doody, in his Connecticut workshop for storage under an informal agreement with NBC.
- In 1961, a fire at Rose's workshop damaged some of the puppets.
- Following litigation related to the fire, Rose and NBC negotiated a resolution. In a series of letters in 1966-1967, they agreed that NBC would pay Rose for past storage, Rose could keep minor puppets, and the main Howdy Doody puppet would be turned over to the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA).
- In 1970, Rose sent the Howdy Doody puppet to the show's host, Robert 'Buffalo Bob' Smith, for use in public appearances, with the express written understanding that the puppet would eventually be placed in the care of the DIA.
- Rufus Rose died in 1975, with the puppet still in Buffalo Bob's possession.
- In 1998, Buffalo Bob and Rufus Rose's son, Christopher Rose, executed an agreement to sell the Howdy Doody puppet and split the proceeds, whereupon Buffalo Bob transferred the puppet to Christopher Rose.
- Shortly after the 1998 agreement, Buffalo Bob died, and Christopher Rose entered into a consignment agreement with an auction house to sell the puppet.
Procedural Posture:
- The Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA) filed suit against Christopher Rose (individually and as executor of his mother's estate), his brothers, and Mildred Smith (executrix of Buffalo Bob Smith's estate) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- The DIA sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment that it was the owner of the Howdy Doody puppet and an order for permanent possession.
- The Rose defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the DIA had no rights to the puppet.
- Defendant Mildred Smith filed a separate motion for summary judgment on behalf of the Smith estate.
- The plaintiff DIA filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling on its ownership claim.
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 agreement between two parties, providing for personal property to be transferred to a third-party beneficiary at an unspecified future date, create an immediately enforceable ownership right for that beneficiary once a reasonable time for performance has passed?
Opinions:
Majority - Droney, District Judge
Yes. An agreement between two parties to transfer property to a third-party beneficiary at an unspecified date creates an enforceable ownership right for that beneficiary once a reasonable time has passed. The series of letters between Rufus Rose and NBC in 1966-1967 constituted a valid and enforceable contract supported by consideration. The plain language of the correspondence and the surrounding circumstances demonstrate a clear intent from both Rose and NBC to confer a direct benefit on the DIA, establishing the DIA as a third-party beneficiary. While the contract did not specify a time for performance, the law implies a term of a 'reasonable time.' Given that over thirty years had passed and both original contracting parties were deceased, a reasonable time for the transfer of the puppet to the DIA had elapsed as a matter of law, perfecting the DIA's ownership claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the rights of third-party beneficiaries, particularly in cases where contract terms are not perfectly explicit. It affirms that courts will imply a 'reasonable time' for performance when a contract is silent on the matter and can determine that this reasonable time has passed as a matter of law, rather than leaving it as a question of fact for a jury. The ruling also shows that the legal identity of a unique object can be established through chain of custody and the contracting parties' mutual understanding, even if its physical composition has changed over time. This precedent is significant for contract interpretation, reinforcing that the clear intent of the parties is paramount and can create binding obligations for their successors.
