Harris v. Time, Inc.
191 Cal. App. 3d 449, 237 Cal. Rprt. 584 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal maxim 'de minimis non curat lex,' meaning the law disregards trifles, will bar a cause of action, even if technically valid, where the plaintiff has suffered no appreciable loss or damage beyond a trivial annoyance.
Facts:
- Time, Inc. sent a piece of bulk rate mail to recipients including Joshua Gnaizda, Mark Harris, and Richard Baker.
- The exterior of the envelope featured a see-through window revealing the text: "I’LL GIVE YOU THIS VERSATILE NEW CALCULATOR WATCH FREE Just for Opening this Envelope..."
- A portion of the sentence, which read "...AND MAILING THIS CERTIFICATE TODAY!", was concealed and not visible through the window.
- Joshua Gnaizda's mother opened the envelope based on the visible promise.
- Inside, she discovered the certificate which required the purchase of a subscription to Fortune magazine to receive the watch.
- Before filing a lawsuit, Joshua's father demanded that Time provide the watch without a subscription, as promised on the envelope.
- Time, Inc. refused to provide the watch without a paid subscription.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Harris, Joshua Gnaizda, and Richard Baker filed a class action lawsuit against Time, Inc. in San Francisco Superior Court, a state trial court.
- Time, Inc. filed a demurrer, arguing the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer as to the causes of action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud, but overruled it for unfair advertising.
- Time, Inc. subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining unfair advertising claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Time, Inc. and entered a final judgment of dismissal against the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the dismissal of their breach of contract and unfair advertising claims to the California Court of Appeal.
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 the legal maxim 'de minimis non curat lex' bar a cause of action for breach of contract where the plaintiff's only claimed loss is the time and effort expended to open a deceptively worded advertisement envelope?
Opinions:
Majority - King, J.
Yes. While the plaintiffs' claim is technically valid as a unilateral contract, it is barred because the law disregards trifles. The court first analyzed the technical merits of the contract claim, finding that Time's mailer constituted an offer for a unilateral contract, not merely an advertisement, because it called for the specific performance of an act (opening the envelope). The act of opening the envelope was deemed adequate consideration because, while of little value to the plaintiff, it was of great value to Time to have its sales pitch viewed. However, despite finding a technically sound offer and consideration, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' actual damage—the loss of a few seconds to open junk mail and the feeling of being tricked—was too insignificant to warrant judicial remedy. The court characterized the lawsuit as an 'absurd waste of resources' designed to address pique rather than actual harm, holding that such a trivial matter falls squarely under the 'de minimis' doctrine.
Analysis:
This case establishes a practical boundary on the enforcement of technically valid contracts, particularly in the realm of advertising. It demonstrates that courts may exercise discretion to dismiss claims where the damages are negligible, preventing the judicial system from being used to litigate minor annoyances. The decision serves as a caution to potential litigants that demonstrating a technical breach of contract is insufficient; there must be some appreciable, non-trivial harm to warrant the court's intervention. This precedent makes it more difficult to bring consumer class actions based solely on deceptive advertising tactics that do not result in monetary loss or other tangible injury.
Unlock the full brief for Harris v. Time, Inc.