Lexplug logoLexplug

Raymond Weil, S.A. v. Theron

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Not available (2008)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A breach of contract, even if material, does not entitle the non-breaching party to rescissionary damages if the breach is not so substantial as to defeat the fundamental purpose of the contract and the non-breaching party has already received substantial benefits.


Facts:

  • On or about May 17, 2005, Raymond Weil, S.A. (RW) entered into an endorsement agreement with Charlize Theron's company, Denver & Delilah Films, Inc. (DDF), for its 'Shine' watch collection.
  • The agreement stipulated that from October 2005 through December 31, 2006, Theron would not publicly wear any watches other than RW's and would not endorse or advertise watches or jewelry for any other company, including for charity.
  • On March 14, 2006, Theron attended the South by Southwest Film Festival and publicly wore a watch made by Christian Dior.
  • In April 2006, a promotional poster featuring Theron with a Montblanc necklace was displayed at a trade show for a charity event. Upon notification from RW, DDF had the poster removed within the five-day cure period specified in the contract.
  • In October 2006, a photograph of Theron from the March film festival, showing her wearing the Dior watch, was published in the 'Tourneau Times' magazine with the caption, 'Charlize Theron wears Dior.'
  • During the contract term, Theron also wore Chopard and Cartier jewelry to awards shows, for which she was compensated or received gifts, events the agreement permitted.
  • The contract expired on December 31, 2006, after the parties failed to negotiate a renewal.

Procedural Posture:

  • Raymond Weil, S.A. filed suit against Charlize Theron and Denver & Delilah Films, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (a federal trial court), alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.
  • Defendants filed an answer denying the allegations.
  • Following discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • Plaintiff Raymond Weil moved for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim.
  • Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims asserted against them.

Locked

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 celebrity's public wearing of a competitor's product, in violation of an exclusive endorsement agreement, constitute a breach so fundamental as to entitle the endorsed brand to rescissionary damages?


Opinions:

Majority - McMahon, District Judge.

No. While a celebrity's public wearing of a competitor's product is a clear and material breach of an exclusivity agreement, it does not warrant the remedy of rescission if the breach does not fundamentally defeat the contract's purpose. The court found that Theron's wearing of the Dior watch was a clear breach of the agreement's exclusivity provision. This breach was material because it was foreseeable that she would be photographed and that the images could be used to promote a competitor, which is exactly what happened. However, this single breach, occurring late in the contract's term, was not so substantial as to defeat the entire purpose of the agreement, as RW had already received the benefit of Theron's endorsement for over a year in a successful campaign. Therefore, RW is not entitled to rescission (a full refund of payments) but may pursue compensatory damages for the actual harm caused by the breach. The court also held that the Montblanc poster incident was not an actionable breach because it was cured within the five-day period allowed by the contract.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the distinction between a material breach and a breach so fundamental that it justifies rescission. It establishes that in endorsement contracts, a single, fleeting violation of an exclusivity clause does not automatically allow the non-breaching party to nullify the entire agreement and recoup all payments. The ruling emphasizes that remedies should be proportional to the harm; where the contract's main purpose has been substantially fulfilled, the remedy is limited to compensatory damages for the specific harm caused by the breach, not a full rescission. This precedent guides future litigation by requiring courts to assess whether a breach truly undermines the 'root of the contract' before granting the drastic remedy of rescission.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Raymond Weil, S.A. v. Theron (2008)

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