Payne v. Pathe Studios, Inc.
Before: Willis
WILLIS, J.,
pro tem.
Defendant Pathe Studios, Inc., has appealed from a judgment for the sum of $5,000 in favor of plaintiff, as assignee of Zazu Pitts, founded on a contract in writing executed by such defendant and plaintiff’s assignor, and the problem on which the controversy herein centers is the nature or character of the contract— whether only an option on personal services or an agreement of employment with a minimum compensation fixed therein.
The contract is in the form of a letter addressed to Miss Zazu Pitts, dated May 7, 1930, and signed by said defendant, with a signed acceptance thereon of Miss Pitts, and is as follows:
“This is to confirm our oral agreement in regard to your services as an actress.
“In consideration of the execution of a Standard Form Artist’s Contract covering your services as an actress in a motion picture which is at present entitled ‘Beyond Victory’ and for the payment of the salary for such services, it is mutually understood and agreed as follows:
“First: You hereby agree to render exclusive services for us as an actress in the production of a motion picture, the photographing of which includes the use and recording of your voice.
“ (Supplementing paragraph First) : It is understood and agreed that in the event, your services are not started on or before December 31, 1930, we hereby agree to pay you the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5000), which represents the four weeks guarantee on this agreement. .
“Second: In consideration of rendering such services, we agree to pay you a salary at the rate of One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty ($1250.00) Dollars per week for a period of not less than four (4) weeks, and if your services are required in excess of the four week period, we agree to con
[139]
tinue to pay you at the same rate for such additional services, six (6) days to be considered a week for the purpose of prorating a fractional part of a week.
“Third: It is understood and agreed that said motion picture for which your services are required will be completed on or before December 31, 1930.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)