The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Mandos Turambar · 02-26-2008, 01:20 PM

Much has been written above about the Plaintiffs seeking to stop any new movie. The odds of this happening through successful litigation are unlikely in any common law court. I have not read which court this suit is in, but essentially all US states and the federal system have a very strong public policy of NOT using equitable orders when the plaintiff can be made whole by contract damages.

The law is divided into multiple areas. For instance, Torts are civil wrongs, such as assault, trespass, slander, etc.., while Contracts are oral or written agreements. Historically, the courts were divided into the law courts and the courts of equity. With limited exceptions, the law courts did not issue orders except for the payment of money, while the equity courts primarily issued orders, generally known as injunctions. In modern practice, these two courts are merged, but the echo of these differences remains.

Essentially all common law jurisdictions (i.e. governments that mainly derive their law from the built up case law of England) follow a rule that says, "when a contract calls for a monetary payment, the relief granted to a plaintiff pleading breach of contract is limited to ascertaining the amount of monetary damages and making an award thereof." In other words, where the plaintiff can be made whole by awarding damages, he/she is not entitled to other relief such as injunctions. This rule is strong, but not absolute. Where fraud (a tort) is properly pled, it can augment the remedies, perhaps leading to injunctions to prohibit further fraud.

However, it appears from the press reports, and what is posted above, that the Tolkien Trust et al. are seeking "rescission" based upon allegations of fraud. This is a very difficult thing, as rescission is used primarily as a remedy for "fraud in the inducement" to enter into the contract - and nothing here would indicate that there is any fraud (if there is) except with regard to New Line's accounting practices (note that I am NOT saying that such allegations are true).

Thus, it is very likely that there is no legal basis for the Tolkien Trust's petition for an order barring further productions. All that is likely is an order that sets forth what the contract means, gives damages for its past breach (if that is found), and perhaps sets forth how it will be interpreted for the future as it applies to the Hobbit.

I'm just a country lawyer, but all this is pretty elementary law...
Then again, Ecclesiastes is right when it says, "One sounds right until another answers." We really have too little information so far, and I cannot wait to hear New Line's response.

02-26-2008, 01:20 PM	#108
Mandos Turambar Newly Deceased Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Northern California Posts: 2	Injunction Unlikely Much has been written above about the Plaintiffs seeking to stop any new movie. The odds of this happening through successful litigation are unlikely in any common law court. I have not read which court this suit is in, but essentially all US states and the federal system have a very strong public policy of NOT using equitable orders when the plaintiff can be made whole by contract damages. The law is divided into multiple areas. For instance, Torts are civil wrongs, such as assault, trespass, slander, etc.., while Contracts are oral or written agreements. Historically, the courts were divided into the law courts and the courts of equity. With limited exceptions, the law courts did not issue orders except for the payment of money, while the equity courts primarily issued orders, generally known as injunctions. In modern practice, these two courts are merged, but the echo of these differences remains. Essentially all common law jurisdictions (i.e. governments that mainly derive their law from the built up case law of England) follow a rule that says, "when a contract calls for a monetary payment, the relief granted to a plaintiff pleading breach of contract is limited to ascertaining the amount of monetary damages and making an award thereof." In other words, where the plaintiff can be made whole by awarding damages, he/she is not entitled to other relief such as injunctions. This rule is strong, but not absolute. Where fraud (a tort) is properly pled, it can augment the remedies, perhaps leading to injunctions to prohibit further fraud. However, it appears from the press reports, and what is posted above, that the Tolkien Trust et al. are seeking "rescission" based upon allegations of fraud. This is a very difficult thing, as rescission is used primarily as a remedy for "fraud in the inducement" to enter into the contract - and nothing here would indicate that there is any fraud (if there is) except with regard to New Line's accounting practices (note that I am NOT saying that such allegations are true). Thus, it is very likely that there is no legal basis for the Tolkien Trust's petition for an order barring further productions. All that is likely is an order that sets forth what the contract means, gives damages for its past breach (if that is found), and perhaps sets forth how it will be interpreted for the future as it applies to the Hobbit. I'm just a country lawyer, but all this is pretty elementary law... Then again, Ecclesiastes is right when it says, "One sounds right until another answers." We really have too little information so far, and I cannot wait to hear New Line's response.