Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Zilg v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

717 F.2d 671 (1983)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Zilg v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York

717 F.2d 671 (1983)

Facts

In 1972 Gerald Zilg (plaintiff) entered into a satisfaction contract with Prentice-Hall, Inc. (defendant) to print a historical book about the famous DuPont family. The contract provided that Prentice-Hall would publish the book once it accepted a satisfactory manuscript, and the contract left decisions about the initial number of books to print and the advertising budget to Prentice-Hall’s sole discretion. Zilg submitted the book in November 1973, and by March 1974, Prentice-Hall had made decisions about the initial printing and marketing budget. However, before the book was printed, most early assessments from reviewers, such as booksellers and book-club leaders, were quite negative. One reviewer for the Fortune Book Club, which had selected the book, described it as crude and cheap, and indicated that the book should “be fed back to the author page by page.” To make matters worse, Prentice-Hall found mistakes of fact and mischaracterizations in the book that could subject the company to a libel action. Further, the Fortune Book Club withdrew its selection of the book. Prentice-Hall decided to limit the first printing to 10,000 books instead of 15,000 and cut the marketing budget to $5,500 down from $15,000. Zilg sued Prentice-Hall for breach of contract and was awarded $24,250 in damages. The trial court ruled that Prentice-Hall had not honored its good-faith obligation to promote the book fully and had no good reason to reduce the first printing or the advertising budget. Prentice-Hall appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Winter, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership