Pinnacle Books, Inc. v. Harlequin Enterprises Limited
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
519 F. Supp. 118 (1981)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Publisher Pinnacle Books, Inc. (plaintiff) and author Don Pendleton had a successful contractual relationship through which Pinnacle Books published 38 books written by Pendleton. The books were part of an action and adventure series called the Executioner Series. Pendleton owned the copyright for the series. The 1976 contract for the publication of books 29–38 included a clause requiring Pendleton not to extend an offer to any other publisher to publish the Executioner Series unless Pinnacle Books and Pendleton could not agree on a new contract after using their best efforts in negotiating. The parties began negotiating in 1978. In January 1980, after the parties had negotiated for about a year, another publisher, Harlequin Enterprises Limited (defendant), notified Pendleton of its interest in publishing the Executioner Series. Pendleton notified Pinnacle Books that he would cease negotiations while considering Harlequin’s offer. A few months later, Pendleton took Harlequin’s offer. Pinnacle Books sued Harlequin Enterprises on the ground that Harlequin interfered with Pinnacle’s contractual relationship with Pendleton, knowing Pendleton was required to negotiate with Pinnacle Books. Harlequin alleged that the best-efforts clause in Pinnacle Books’ contract was not enforceable. Pinnacle Books filed a motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Duffy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
