IRAC Case Briefs: Case11.3 Wagner V. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (Course: Legal And – Case Study Example

Case 11.3 Wagner v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc Issue: How might the result in this case have been different if thecourt had admitted Wagner’s evidence of the “love song” contract?
Under what circumstances would Wagner have been entitled to a share of the profits from the Charlie’s Angles movies, even though the evidence of the love song contract was irrelevant?
Wagner was an actor who acquired a contract, upon entering an agreement with “Spelling Goldberg Productions (SGP),” relating to a series known as the Charlie’s Angels. The contract allowed Wagner to have 50% of SGP’s net profits acquired from broadcasting the series. It also entitled Wagner to benefits from all music, subsidiary, and ancillary right connected with the series. SGP later sold its rights to the Charlie’s Angels series to ‘Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.’ Wagner filed a case against Columbia to claim a share of the net profit from the series (Cross et al 177).
Rule:
A court will use the rules of interpretation in the language used in a contract between parties to determine their intent and give effect to that intent.
Application:
Because the exact and specific wording, in a contract, would be given greater consideration compared to general language the court would affirm the judgment in favor of Wagner based on the fact that the contract stated that he would be entitled to benefits from all rights connected to the series. In addition, because a word would be given its common and ordinary accepted meaning, the court would give Wagner the right to share the profits from the Charlie’s Angles movies, even after being owned by ‘Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.’ This is because the love song contract allowed Wagner to get half-amount of the profit obtained from broadcasting the movie. It would apply even though the evidence provided by Wagner of acquiring 50% of the net profit from the movie was irrelevant (Cross et al 125).
Conclusion:
Wagner is entitled to a share of the net profit of Charlie’s Angles movies, even after ‘Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc ’owned it because his evidence meets the rules of interpreting the language used in contracts.
Work Cited
Cross, Frank B, Miller Roger LeRoy, and Clarkson, Kenneth W. Business Law: Text and Cases. Boston: cengage learning, 2014. Print.