Friedlander v. Stanley Productions, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Feb 2, 1938 No. Civ. 11665Published

Before: Crail

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an arbitration clause in a contract is inoperative when the underlying dispute concerns whether the contract itself has been terminated, and it affirmed the trial court's findings that the defendants failed to perform their contractual obligations.

Issues

Whether an action for declaratory relief regarding a contract's termination is premature if the dispute was not first submitted to the Commissioner of Labor under the Private Employment Agency Act.
Whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings regarding the plaintiff's readiness for employment and the defendants' failure to use their best efforts.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the contract had been terminated, then the arbitration provision was inoperative.”

“In our view of the record there is substantial evidence, along with the inferences which may reasonably be drawn therefrom, to sustain each of said findings”

CRAIL, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action for declaratory relief, the complaint alleging that a certain contract between the parties was canceled and that the plaintiff was under no contractual obligation to the defendant by virtue of said agreement.

For several years plaintiff had been employed by Universal Pictures Corporation as a director. During no part of said time did he have a personal representative or manager until he entered into the contract hereinafter referred to on January 29, 1936. On that date the plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement by the terms of which the plaintiff employed the defendants to act as his personal representative and manager for a period of seven years in consideration of the sum of ten per cent of all money or things of value received by plaintiff. By the terms of said contract the defendants were to use their best efforts to further the professional interests of the plaintiff in motion pictures, radio, television, stage and in general. The contract further provided that should the plaintiff fail to obtain a

bona fide

offer of employment from a responsible employer during a period in excess of four consecutive months, during all of

[679]

which time plaintiff was ready, able and willing to accept employment, either party had the right to terminate the contract by notice in writing. The contract contained a further provision that, “Controversies arising between us under the private employment agency act, and under the rules and regulations for the enforcement thereof, shall be referred to the Commissioner of Labor as provided in Section 19 of said Act.”

During the term of the agreement plaintiff made numerous demands upon defendants that they expend greater efforts in his behalf in securing him other employment, and being dissatisfied with their efforts the plaintiff on June 1, 1936, discharged the defendants by letter. After the defendants had been discharged they continued to claim rights under the agreement, and thereupon plaintiff filed his complaint for declaratory relief. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had failed to use their best efforts to further the professional interests of the plaintiff and had failed to obtain a

Friedlander v. Stanley Productions, Inc.

AI Brief

CRAIL, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief