Michael Coppel Promotions Pty. Ltd. v. Bolton
1997 WL 709975, 982 F. Supp. 950, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17931 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement on all material terms can create an enforceable contract, even if the parties contemplate a later written agreement, unless they expressly manifest an intent not to be bound until a written contract is executed.
Facts:
- In early March 1996, representatives for Michael Coppel Promotions (MCP) and Michael Bolton orally agreed to the material terms for an eight-concert tour in Australia.
- The key terms were that Bolton would perform the concerts in exchange for compensation of the greater of $1,200,000 or 85% of net ticket receipts.
- Based on this oral agreement and with the apparent consent of Bolton's agent, MCP immediately began selling tickets and engaging in promotional activities for the tour.
- In mid-to-late April 1996, Bolton's agent sent MCP a draft short form agreement and a contract rider, which MCP alleged reflected the prior oral agreement but also introduced some new and conflicting ancillary terms.
- In a subsequent telefax, MCP noted discrepancies regarding payment instructions and objected to an increase in the size of Bolton's touring party mentioned in the new documents.
- On or about April 26, 1996, Bolton's agent cancelled the Australian tour, citing poor ticket sales.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Coppel Promotions Pty. Limited (MCP) filed a breach of contract action against Michael Bolton and MBO Tours in U.S. District Court.
- Defendants Bolton and MBO Tours filed a motion to dismiss MCP's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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 plaintiff state a valid claim for breach of an oral contract where the parties allegedly agreed on all material terms and one party began performance, even though a formal written agreement was contemplated but never signed and subsequent communications discussed ancillary details?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, District Judge
Yes. A plaintiff states a valid claim for breach of an oral contract by alleging that the parties reached a meeting of the minds on all material terms, even if they contemplated a later formal writing. At the motion to dismiss stage, the court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true. Here, MCP sufficiently alleged the material terms of an oral contract (performance dates, locations, and compensation). The subsequent exchange of documents and faxes discussing ancillary details does not, as a matter of law, prove that no contract had been formed. The question of whether the parties intended to be bound by their oral agreement is a question of fact for a jury. Furthermore, MCP's alleged partial performance—commencing ticket sales and promotion—is an 'unmistakable signal' that it believed a contract existed, further supporting the plausibility of its claim.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the high bar for dismissing a breach of contract claim at the pleading stage when the existence of an oral agreement is disputed. It reinforces the principle that the intent of the parties to be bound is a factual question that is generally inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. The decision highlights that conduct, such as partial performance, can be powerful evidence of an intent to be bound, even in the absence of a signed written agreement. This serves as a caution that parties who wish to avoid being bound before a formal document is executed must clearly and unequivocally express that intent during negotiations.
Unlock the full brief for Michael Coppel Promotions Pty. Ltd. v. Bolton