Cabot v. Jamie Record Co.
United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
No. 96-4672, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5549 (1999), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1129 (2000) (without opinion)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
In the 1960s, songwriter Gilbert Cabot (plaintiff) entered a master purchase agreement with Jamie Record Co. (Jamie) (defendant) in which Cabot sold Jamie two master recordings in exchange for a cash advance and the promise of future royalties. Cabot also entered a participation agreement with Jamie Music Publishing Co., doing business as Dandelion Music Co. (Dandelion) (defendant), in which Dandelion acquired copyright ownership of the two compositions for licensing and other commercial purposes, again in exchange for a cash advance and future royalties. Jamie and Dandelion were both required to provide Cabot with regular accounting statements. In addition, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) was licensed to collect performance royalties on the songs and make payments to Cabot and Dandelion. Jamie and Dandelion only occasionally provided Cabot with the required accounting statements, and from 1972 to 1976 no statements at all were provided. Jamie and Dandelion also failed to make all the royalty payments due to Cabot, and from 1991 to 1995 no payments were made. However, Cabot did receive more than $60,000 under the two agreements, as well as several payments from BMI. Cabot brought suit for rescission of the agreements.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Giles, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.