Loew’s, Inc. v. Wolff
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
101 F. Supp. 981 (1951)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Erich Wolff (defendant) engaged the services of Elsie Foulstone to write a story based on the experience and medical condition of his late wife. Foulstone wrote a synopsis of a story entitled, “Swear Not by the Moon.” But, unsatisfied with the end product, Wolff terminated her services. Wolff later engaged the services of Victoria Wolf (defendant), who wrote a synopsis of a story and two revisions to Wolff’s satisfaction. The pair sold the second revision entitled, “Case History,” to Loew’s, Inc. (plaintiff) pursuant to an assignment agreement (agreement) in which Loew’s acquired “the complete, unconditional and unencumbered title” thereto. Foulstone then sued for a portion of the proceeds of the sale because of the work she had done on “Swear Not by the Moon.” The court in that case determined that Foulstone had no claim or interest in the story, “Case History.” But before that case was dismissed, Loew’s instituted the instant action, claiming, in part, that Wolff and Wolf breached the warranty to sell marketable and perfect title to the story, free from reasonable doubt and also seeking damages for the costs incurred in instituting the action pursuant to an indemnification clause in the agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
