Presidio Enterprises, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Distributing Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
784 F.2d 674 (1986)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Presidio Enterprises, Inc., and others (collectively, Presidio) (plaintiffs) were film exhibitors that owned and operated movie theaters. Warner Bros. Distributing Corporation (Warner) (defendant) was a major motion-picture distributor. Warner shot a star-studded film called The Swarm about an invasion of Texas by South American killer bees. Before the release date, Warner advertised the film to potential exhibitors. Warner sent Presidio a brochure stating that Warner had started shooting the exhibitors’ summer “blockbuster” that Warner hoped would “be the greatest adventure-survival movie of all time” and “the most ‘want-to-see’ movie of the year.” Warner sent Presidio a bid letter and another brochure describing The Swarm as a “chilling, riveting, harrowing, cinematic experience” that promised to be director Irwin Allen’s “biggest and best to date.” Before Presidio bid for exhibition rights to The Swarm, a paid Hollywood consultant advised Presidio not to “go out on it.” Presidio submitted a “medium range bid.” The Swarm was a box-office failure. Presidio sued Warner for common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. A jury found for Presidio. Warner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goldberg, 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.
