Ring v. Spina
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
148 F.2d 647 (1945)

- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
The Dramatists’ Guild of the Authors’ League of America, Inc. (Guild) (defendant) required a producer to sign the Guild’s Minimum Basic Agreement (Basic Agreement) before such producer could acquire or license work from a member of the Guild. Among other things, the Basic Agreement limited contracts to those made between producers and members who were both in good standing with the Guild, set forth the minimum compensation to be paid to members, as well as included an arbitration clause. Gaumont entered into a production contract with three authors (defendants) to produce a theatrical play called “Stovepipe Hat.” Ring (plaintiff) later acquired the production through assignment and invested $50,000 in the play. Ring sought to enter into a contract with the authors directly as a means to safeguard his investment, but, as each author was a member of the Guild, Ring had to first sign the Basic Agreement. Ring invested an additional $75,000 in the play, which eventually opened in several metropolitan cities. When Ring made changes to the play without the authors’ consent, the authors terminated the production contract and claimed breach of the Basic Agreement. The play closed, and the authors requested arbitration of the dispute pursuant to the Basic Agreement. Ring then filed a motion for a temporary injunction pending trial to enjoin the authors from proceeding with arbitration or otherwise enforcing the Basic Agreement, and from interfering with the play’s run. Ring also challenged the Basic Agreement as a violation of the Sherman Act. The district court denied the motion on the ground that relief should be denied because Ring, by signing the Basic Agreement, was himself participating in the alleged illegal combination and the parties were therefore in pari delicto. Ring appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, 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.