Helprin v. Harcourt, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York
277 F. Supp. 2d 327 (2003)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A publisher's contractual discretion to reject an author's manuscript as 'unacceptable' is limited by an implied duty of good faith, which requires the publisher to provide the author with substantive editorial feedback and an opportunity to cure any perceived defects before rejection.

Facts:

In 1989, author Mark Helprin entered into a publishing agreement with publisher Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. (Harcourt).
The agreement obligated Helprin to produce five works in exchange for a $2,000,000 advance.
The contract defined an 'acceptable' work as one meeting a standard of literary merit comparable to Helprin's previous works.
The agreement also required Harcourt to allocate a budget of at least $100,000 per work for advertising and promotion.
In 1995, Harcourt published the first work under the agreement, 'Memoir from Antproof Case'.
On October 24, 2002, Helprin submitted a draft of his second work (the 'Contested Work') to Harcourt.
On December 17, 2002, Harcourt sent Helprin a letter rejecting the manuscript, stating only that it was 'unacceptable as defined in paragraph 16 of the Agreement,' without providing further editorial comment or an opportunity to revise.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Mark Helprin filed a complaint against Defendants Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. and Harcourt, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleged claims for fraud and breach of contract.
Defendants (Harcourt) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
The court is ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss.

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 a publisher breach its contractual duty of good faith by rejecting an author's manuscript as 'unacceptable' without providing any editorial assistance or an opportunity for the author to cure the manuscript's alleged defects?

Opinions:

Majority - Marrero, District Judge

Yes. A publisher may breach its contractual duty of good faith by rejecting a manuscript without offering editorial feedback or a chance to revise. The court held that while the publishing agreement grants Harcourt discretion to determine if a work is 'acceptable,' this discretion is not absolute and must be exercised in good faith. Citing established precedent, the court affirmed that satisfaction clauses in publishing contracts require the publisher to provide editorial assistance before rejection. Good faith in this context involves providing a detailed editorial analysis of a manuscript's perceived shortcomings and giving the author a genuine opportunity to remedy those defects. Helprin's allegation that Harcourt rejected his work with only a conclusory letter and no editorial input is sufficient to state a claim for a breach of the duty of good faith. Therefore, Harcourt's motion to dismiss this breach of contract claim is denied.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that discretionary clauses in contracts are constrained by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It specifically defines the contours of 'good faith' within the author-publisher relationship, emphasizing the collaborative and editorial partnership inherent in the industry. The ruling establishes that publishers cannot use 'satisfaction' clauses as a pretext to reject manuscripts for unstated reasons, such as poor commercial prospects, without first engaging in a substantive editorial process. This precedent protects authors by ensuring they receive concrete feedback and an opportunity to improve their work before a publisher can terminate its obligations under a contract.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Helprin v. Harcourt, Inc. (2003)

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

Premium Feature