Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

<b><i>Decision of Note</b></i> Statute of Frauds Bars Enforcement Of Executive Deals

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
August 25, 2003

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, has decided that the Statute of Frauds barred record executives from enforcing unsigned two- and three-year contracts for them to operate a proposed but canceled country music label. Shedd v. Gaylord Entertainment Co., M2002-00258-COA-R3-CV. The statute voided the contracts because they couldn't be performed within one year, the court noted.

The plaintiffs contended that the contracts nevertheless were enforceable based on partial performance. This included one of the plaintiffs attending staff meetings at the defendant's offices as well as going to artist showcases prior to the proposed effective date of the contract. Another plaintiff attended label development meetings and called upon potential buyers.

But the appeals court noted 'preparing to perform under a contract is not quite the same as actually performing. ' a plaintiff's partial performance has been deemed sufficient to bring a multi-year employment contract out of the Statute of Frauds only where that performance has been substantial and where it began after the effective date of the contract.'

The plaintiffs alternatively argued that the employment contracts should be enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The appeals court ruled, however, 'There are no allegations in the present case of any conduct by the defendant that verges on actual fraud. It appears rather that the defendant simply decided to abandon its plan to launch a new record label before entering into enforceable contracts with the plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs may have altered their positions in the expectation that the new label would become a reality, there are no indications that the defendant's decision was based on improper motive, or that it obtained an unconscionable advantage by its actions. Thus, we do not believe that this is one of those 'exceptional cases' where promissory estoppel should be applied.'

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, has decided that the Statute of Frauds barred record executives from enforcing unsigned two- and three-year contracts for them to operate a proposed but canceled country music label. Shedd v. Gaylord Entertainment Co., M2002-00258-COA-R3-CV. The statute voided the contracts because they couldn't be performed within one year, the court noted.

The plaintiffs contended that the contracts nevertheless were enforceable based on partial performance. This included one of the plaintiffs attending staff meetings at the defendant's offices as well as going to artist showcases prior to the proposed effective date of the contract. Another plaintiff attended label development meetings and called upon potential buyers.

But the appeals court noted 'preparing to perform under a contract is not quite the same as actually performing. ' a plaintiff's partial performance has been deemed sufficient to bring a multi-year employment contract out of the Statute of Frauds only where that performance has been substantial and where it began after the effective date of the contract.'

The plaintiffs alternatively argued that the employment contracts should be enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The appeals court ruled, however, 'There are no allegations in the present case of any conduct by the defendant that verges on actual fraud. It appears rather that the defendant simply decided to abandon its plan to launch a new record label before entering into enforceable contracts with the plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs may have altered their positions in the expectation that the new label would become a reality, there are no indications that the defendant's decision was based on improper motive, or that it obtained an unconscionable advantage by its actions. Thus, we do not believe that this is one of those 'exceptional cases' where promissory estoppel should be applied.'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.