SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kunz
American Broadcasting Companies v. Wolf
Citation:
420 N.EE.2d 363, 438 N.Y.S.2d 482 (1981)Facts
In February 1978, Defendant entered into an employment contract with Plaintiff for the position of a sportscaster. Following the exercise of the renewal option, the contract was to terminate on March 5, 1980. The contract also contained a good-faith negotiation and first-refusal provision which bound Defendant to negotiate in good faith with Plaintiff for a 90-day period and for the first 45 days of this period, the negotiation with Plaintiff was to be exclusive. Then, after the expiration of the 90-day negotiating period, Defendant was required, before accepting any other employment offer, to afford Plaintiff a right of first refusal. And after the expiration of the first-refusal period Defendant was then free to accept any job opportunity, without obligation to Plaintiff. Defendant started discussing the terms of a renewal contract with Plaintiff in September 1979 and agreed to finalize the matter by mid-October. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, at the same time Defendant was negotiating with Plaintiff, Defendant met with representatives of CBS. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the renewal period in mid-October, leading to Defendant a few days later, again discussing employment possibilities with CBS. Plaintiff did not contact Defendant again until January 1980, when they expressed their willingness to meet substantially all of Defendant’s demands. Defendant rejected the offer, stating that Plaintiff’s delay in communicating with him and his desire to explore his options in light of the impending expiration of the 45-day exclusive negotiation period. In February 1980, after the 45-day exclusive negotiation period ceased, Defendant and CBS orally agreed on the terms of Defendant’s employment as a sportscaster. Defendant signed the CBS production agreement three days later. The next day, Defendant submitted a letter of resignation to Plaintiff. Plaintiff met again with Defendant, making various offers and promises, all of which Defendant rejected. Defendant informed Plaintiff that they had delayed negotiations with him and downgraded his worth. Once Defendant’s move to CBS became public knowledge, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.