Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Inc. v. Sanders
No Reporter Information Available (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Specific performance is an appropriate remedy for the breach of an agreement to provide screen credits because monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for the future harm to an artist's reputation, which is speculative and difficult to quantify, and an injunction prevents the need for a multiplicity of future lawsuits.
Facts:
- In March 1969, Terry Sanders entered a written agreement with Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Inc. (Tamarind) to write, direct, and produce a film.
- Sanders completed the film, titled “Four Stones for Kanemitsu,” exercising artistic control over production, sound, and editing.
- After the film was screened in April 1970, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the original agreement.
- To resolve litigation over the initial dispute, Sanders and Tamarind entered into a written settlement agreement on April 30, 1973.
- This settlement agreement explicitly stated that Sanders would receive a screen credit entitled “A Film by Terry Sanders.”
- Tamarind subsequently breached the settlement agreement by distributing prints of the film without including Sanders' contractually mandated credit.
Procedural Posture:
- After an initial dispute over a 1969 production agreement led to litigation, the parties entered a settlement agreement in 1973.
- Tamarind later sued Sanders for declaratory relief and damages; Sanders cross-complained for breach of the settlement agreement, seeking damages and specific performance.
- The cases were consolidated and tried in state trial court.
- A jury found that Tamarind had breached the settlement agreement and awarded Sanders $25,000 in damages for harm already suffered.
- The trial court judge, ruling on the equitable claims, denied Sanders' request for specific performance (an injunction to compel Tamarind to add the credit to future film prints).
- Sanders (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of his request for an injunction 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 an award of monetary damages for past harm resulting from the failure to provide screen credit preclude the equitable remedy of specific performance to prevent future harm from continued failure to provide such credit?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
No, an award of monetary damages for past harm does not preclude specific performance to prevent future harm. The legal remedy of damages is inadequate as a matter of law for future breaches of a screen credit provision. First, the loss of publicity and harm to an artist's reputation are inherently difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in monetary terms, making any damage award for future harm speculative. As established in cases like Poe v. Michael Todd Co., an artist's reputation is their 'stock in trade,' and the failure to provide credit constitutes irreparable injury. Second, allowing future exhibitions without credit would constitute a continuous breach, creating the potential for an untold number of lawsuits. Because the legal remedy is inadequate and the other requisites for specific performance (a reasonable contract, mutuality of remedy, and definite terms) are met, an injunction is the proper remedy to prevent future injury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that contracts for unique personal services or benefits, like screen credits, are particularly suited for the remedy of specific performance. It establishes that an artist's reputation and the value of public acclaim are unique assets for which monetary damages are an inadequate substitute. The case clarifies that a plaintiff can be awarded both legal relief (damages) for past breaches and equitable relief (an injunction) for future breaches, treating them as distinct harms. This precedent is significant in the entertainment industry, providing artists with a powerful tool to enforce credit provisions that are critical to their career development and future earning potential.
Unlock the full brief for Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Inc. v. Sanders