SOUND-FILM DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 200, 21 May 1931, Page 3

SOUND-FILM DISPUTE

Failure to Show Picture

ACTION FOR DAMAGES The action for damages for alleged breach of contract, brought in the Supreme Court by United Artists (Australia), Ltd. (Mr. O’Leary and Mr. Evans), against the Fuller-Hayward Theatre Corporation, Ltd. (Mr. Gray, K.C. and Mr. Young) was continued yesterday. Judgment was reserved at the conclusion of legal argument. His Honour, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, was on the Bench. There were two claims. One was in respect of the feature motion picture “Evangeline,” which, it was stated, was to be shown in Wellington prior to December 31, 1929, but which was not exhibited in accordance with the terms of agreement entered into. The plaintiff company claimed damages amounting to £450 in respect of this picture. The second claim related to the feature motion picture “Venus,” which was to have been shown in Dunedin, the damages sought in this case being £4OO. The defence was a denial of contract, or that, if there was a contract, the plaintiff company had failed to arrange a date before the expiry of the agreement for the exhibition of the picture, and did not give delivery of the film. Any failure on the part of the defendant company, it was claimed, was waived by reason of the fact that the plaintiff company gave no date for the exhibition o£ the film “Evangeline” until about three months after the expiration of the agreement.

At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Young submitted that the form of agreement was drawn up by the plaintiff company. No date was fixed for the exhibition of the picture during the period covered by the agreement, and as damages could only be assessed upon a date having been arranged, the plaintiffs could not recover damages. Mr. O’Leary contended that the position was analagous to a case of nonacceptance of goods, the vendor having proved that he was ready ami willing to supply them. What the defendant, company claimed was a waiving or abandonment of the plaintiff company’s right to damages was merely forbearance on the part of the plaintiff. Legal argument was heard at some length, and His Honour said he would give his judgment, later.