Pinnacle Books, Inc. v. Harlequin Enterprises Ltd.
519 F.Supp. 118 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual clause requiring parties to use 'best efforts' to negotiate a new agreement is unenforceable for indefiniteness if it lacks objective criteria or guidelines by which those efforts can be measured.
Facts:
- Pinnacle Books, Inc. had published 'The Executioner' series by author Don Pendleton since 1969, releasing 38 titles and selling approximately 20 million copies.
- In 1976, Pinnacle and Pendleton signed a contract for books 29-38 of 'The Executioner' series.
- This 1976 agreement included an option clause (Clause VII) granting Pinnacle the right to renew for future books 'on terms to be agreed' and requiring both parties to use 'best efforts' to reach a new agreement; if unsuccessful, Pendleton could offer rights elsewhere after a specified waiting period.
- Pendleton delivered the final manuscript under the 1976 contract on December 14, 1979.
- Negotiations between Pinnacle and Pendleton for a contract extension began in September 1978 and continued until February 10, 1980.
- Andrew Ettinger, Pinnacle's former editorial director, joined Harlequin Enterprises Limited in November 1979.
- In early January 1980, Ettinger, now representing Harlequin, began discussing publishing 'The Executioner' series with Pendleton.
- On May 15, 1980, Pendleton signed a formal agreement with Harlequin to publish new books in 'The Executioner' series.
Procedural Posture:
- Pinnacle Books, Inc. instituted an action in federal district court in September 1980 against Harlequin Enterprises Limited, alleging unlawful interference with its contractual relationship with Don Pendleton and seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- Pinnacle moved for summary judgment.
- Harlequin argued against Pinnacle's motion for summary judgment, contending that the option clause was unenforceable due to vagueness or was merely an 'agreement to agree,' or alternatively, that an evidentiary hearing was needed.
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 contract clause requiring parties to use 'best efforts' to negotiate a new agreement 'on terms to be agreed' create an enforceable obligation sufficient to support a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, even without objective criteria for measuring those efforts?
Opinions:
Majority - Kevin Thomas Duffy
No, a contract clause requiring parties to use 'best efforts' to negotiate a new agreement 'on terms to be agreed' does not create an enforceable obligation sufficient to support a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations when it lacks objective criteria for measuring those efforts. To succeed in an action for interference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a valid contract. The court acknowledged that the 'best efforts' clause, which required the parties to work actively and in good faith to reach an agreement, was not merely an unenforceable 'agreement to agree' in the sense that it required effort. However, the clause was unenforceable because its terms were too vague. The court held that essential to the enforcement of a 'best efforts' clause is a clear set of guidelines against which the parties’ efforts may be measured, whether expressly provided in the contract or implied from the circumstances. In this case, where the parties only agreed to negotiate 'on terms to be agreed' and failed to state objective standards, a court cannot determine whether 'best efforts' were used. The court emphasized that no party to a negotiation is required to make a particular offer or accept particular terms, as these are matters of business judgment. Without express standards, a court cannot objectively assess the quality of either party's negotiation efforts. Thus, the option clause was unenforceable due to the indefiniteness of its terms, meaning Pinnacle's claim of tortious interference could not stand.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the enforceability of 'best efforts' clauses, particularly in agreements to negotiate future contracts. It establishes that while such clauses are not inherently unenforceable 'agreements to agree,' they must contain sufficiently definite terms or objective criteria to be legally binding. This ruling is crucial for contract drafting, advising parties to include specific metrics or benchmarks when intending to create an enforceable obligation to negotiate. It limits the scope of tortious interference claims, requiring a demonstrably valid and definite underlying contract, thereby preventing parties from asserting claims based on vague or aspirational commitments. Future litigants will need to prove precise standards for 'best efforts' to invoke judicial enforcement.
