Home Blog Page 3

A New Contract: Mjolnir Strikes Back for the Return of Lightsabers

0

The epic Twitter contract negotiations of Marvel and Star Wars heralded a heroic age of contract formation of offer, acceptance and consideration for the use of property.

The Twitter negotiations, however, also required trading Yoda, Hutts, plus Deadpool for Boba Fett, and Mace Windu for Nick Fury. The open discussions for trading human beings (and other living beings who are not animals or property), would violate the civil rights of those individuals, given the prohibition of indentured servitude. Moreover, @Marvel specifically rejected including any of Tony Stark’s armor in the negotiations out of fear Ewoks would be placed in them. As such, the parties discussion could be summarized as the following terms and conditions:

 The Marvel & Star Wars Lease Agreement of Lightsabers for Mjolnir 

@Marvel and @StarWars, both subsidiaries of Disney, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:

@StarWars will lease to @Marvel one blue lightsaber, one green lightsaber, one purple lightsaber, one yellow lightsaber and one red lightsaber for the term of one week (7 day on Earth);

@Marvel will use the above mentioned lightsabers for scientific research.

@StarWars hereby warns @Marvel of the risk of injury of using said lightsabers, including loss of limbs, eye injury, blindness, beheading and even death.

In consideration for the use of the lightsabers, @Marvel will lend for a period of one week Mjolnir (7 days on Earth), making no warranties on whether anyone at @StarWars is worthy enough to lift Mjolnir.

@Marvel hereby warns @StarWars of the risk of injury for using Mjolnir, including lower back strain for attempting to lift, arm injury, dislocated shoulders, eye injury from lightening, hearing damage from thunder, electrocution, property damage from flooding, high winds, rain, or lightening strikes, and any other reasonably foreseeable injuries from attempting to control weather or throwing a hammer.

Choice of Law:

The parties agreements will be governed by the laws of the State of California.

Forum Selection Clause:

Any and all disputes will be heard in Anaheim, California, at Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, and arbitrated by the animatronic Abraham Lincoln. The parties further agree to be bound by the arbitrator’s final decision on ay disputes, waiving all legal claims.

Waiver of Claims by @Marvel:

@Marvel waives any claims against @StarWars, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers from damage or loss caused by:

A. Any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Contract, or any part of this Contract.

B. Any judgement or award: (i) declaring this Contract, or any part of this Contract, either void or voidable, or (ii) delaying the performance of any part of this Contract.

Waiver of Claims by @StarWars:

@StarWars waives any claims against @Marvel, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers from damage or loss caused by:

A. Any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Contract, or any part of this Contract.

B. Any judgement or award: (i) declaring this Contract, or any part of this Contract, either void or voidable, or (ii) delaying the performance of any part of this Contract.

Express Agreement by Parties

Neither @Marvel or @StarWars will allow any of its officers, agents, employees or volunteers to use either a lightsaber or Mjolnir without a signed liability wavier for any injury sustained by using a lightsaber or Mjolnir. Children are expressly prohibited from using the property subject to this agreement.

Property Damage:

The parties will be financially responsible for any damage to the property subject to this contract.

Severability:

If any provision of this Contract is held invalid or unenforceable, its invalidity or unenforceability will not affect any other provisions of this Contract, and this Contract will be construed and enforced as if such provision had not been included.

Entire Agreement:

This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between @Marvel and @StarWars. Both parties revoke all prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements between them that are inconsistent with this Contract. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the Contract, this Contract will be deemed to have been drafted by the parties in equal parts so that no presumptions or inferences concerning its terms or interpretation may be construed against any party to this Contract.

The Mindy Project – a Model Show

0

I’m a big fan of sitcoms – popular ones, hip ones, old-lady ones – and my current favorite (now that 30 Rock is off the air) is The Mindy ProjectAmy, Tina, and Mindy – my trifecta of amazing, incredible, funny role models.  I adore them all.

Mindy is smart, funny, and very appealing.  And the show keeps getting better and better (although they’re clearly strugglingto find the right girlfriend for Mindy).  Danny and Mindy are the new Sam and Diane.  We know they’re meant for each other but, in the meantime, they bicker while pining over exes.  Danny’s ex-wife has been played on the show by the great Chloe Sevigny.  As Christina, Chloe plays a photographer.  And last week we found out that she took sexy photos of Danny during their brief effort to rekindle their romance.

Danny admitted that he signed a release but then went to a lawyer to see if he could stop Cristina from displaying the photos anyway.  But the lawyer wasn’t any help.  And that’s because Danny was in a tough spot.  A model release is a type of contract, which usually signs over unlimited use of the photographs for lawful uses (display, advertising, etc.) and waives the subject’s right to inspect or approve the finished product.  So if the agreement is valid (e.g., Danny understood what he was signing) and the release language is broad enough to cover displaying his image in an art gallery, then he can’t claim that Christina breached the terms of their agreement.  And if he wanted to revoke the release (i.e., essentially tear up the release like it never existed), then he would have to claim that Christina fraudulently induced him into signing the agreement.  And that’s a tough argument to make.

So Danny couldn’t stop Christina – no matter what he tried.  And the office came out to support his Weiner Night.  And everybody should take a lesson from this: no matter how much you think you love and trust someone, those dirty pictures are going to turn up somewhere eventually!

Howard Stern vs. his bosses – Why does Howard always lose?

0

radio shock jockPoor Howard.  For a guy who’s been so successful, he sure has problems with his bosses.  Stern’s battles with NBC were immortalized in Private Parts while anybody who listened to his last days on terrestrial radio knew how much he hated Les Moonves.  And then he met satellite radio, moved to Sirius Radio, and lived happily ever after…for a while.

Everything seemed great at first.  He could cuss and swear and do all kinds of crazy things (or have Richard and Sal do crazy things).  He loved his boss, Mel Karmazin, and got paid a bunch of money.  And he made Sirius very successful; so much so that it was able to essentially force a merger with its once dominant competitor, XM Radio.

MillionsAnd that’s when trouble began brewing in paradise.  Howard claimed that, because of the additional XM subscribers, he was entitled to a $300 million performance bonus that had been part of his Sirius contract – a bonus that was triggered if Sirius added a certain number of subscribers.  SiriusXM disagreed, stating that he was only entitled to that bonus if Sirius subscribers surpassed a certain benchmark, and that the XM subscribers should not be viewed as “Sirius subscribers.”

Howard and his agent filed suit.  SiriusXM moved for summary judgment on Howard’s claims, arguing that, as a matter of law, Howard’s claims should be dismissed.  And the court agreed, citing to the “clear, unambiguous language” of Howard’s contract.

So Howard appealed.  And now he’s lost again.  He’s obviously disappointed (that’s a lot of money left on the table).  And, according to Howard himself on his show today, he’s frustrated with the legal system and feels that he never got his day in court.

CourtroomBut the truth is that Howard did get his day in court, even if it’s not the way he pictured it.  Many people don’t realize that not all issues go to trial, with their judges, juries, witnesses, and dramatic gestures.  Instead, those moments are reserved for factual questions.  If the only issues that are disputed are strictly legal (in other words, a jury would never get to weigh in on the dispute because they are questions that are reserved for judges), then any party can move for summary judgment if it wants to.  A summary judgment motion “is appropriate if, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no genuine issue exists as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  BGC Partners, Inc. v. Refco Securities., LLC, 2012 WL 1255253, 2 (N.Y.Sup. 2012).

Summary judgment motions are often used in such cases as Howard’s, where the issue is whether a contract has been breached.  A breach of contract dispute requires the court to interpret the contract, and the general rule followed in New York and most states is that where the language of a contract is clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous, then the contract is to be interpreted by its own language.  See R/S Associates v. New York Job Development Authority,  98 N.Y.2d 29, 32, 771 N.E.2d 240, 242, 744 N.Y.S.2d 358, 360 (N.Y. 2002).  The underlying rationale for this principle is that when parties write down an agreement in a clear, complete document, then the words that they use in that contract should be enforced according to the contract’s own terms.  See id.  The only time extrinsic evidence (a.k.a. “evidence outside the four corners of the document”) will be considered by the court is if a term is ambiguous (e.g., subject to more than one meaning).

Dictionary Series - Info: dataThe reasoning behind this principle is sound.  If the parties hammer out a written agreement (and, in the case of Howard’s agreement with Sirius, there were surely teams of lawyers on both sides), then one party shouldn’t be able to come back later and say, “Well, I don’t care what the words of the written contract say, I actually meant Y when I said X in the contract.”  On the other hand, if the parties goof up and use a term that can be interpreted in multiple ways, then the courts will allow the parties to introduce evidence (e.g., testimony, emails, drafts of the contract) to show what each side meant when they used that term.

So back to Howard’s complaint that he never got his day in court…summary judgment motions are a party’s “day in court” for strictly legal questions, such as interpreting contract language.  To deny parties a right to resolve legal issues upfront, before incurring all of the expenses required to gear up for a full trial (including discovery on a bunch of factual issues that wouldn’t even matter because of the legal issues that either trump them or make them moot), would be a waste of the court’s time and parties’ resources (although, as a litigator, that would mean more work for me).
The ultimate question in Howard’s case isn’t whether he got his day in court – it’s whether the court (and, now, the appellate court) were right to find that “Sirius subscribers” was an unambiguous term, such that factual disputes regarding its meaning were irrelevant.  As a staunch Howard fan I’m afraid I have to recuse myself from that discussion, because there’s no way I can be impartial.  Baba booey!

 

It was a joke!

0

Donald Trump is back in the news again…this time for suing comedian Bill Maher over an offer Maher made on the Tonight Show a month ago.  Talking to host Jay Leno, Bill Maher said that he would donate $5 million to the charities of Trump’s choice if Trump could prove that he wasn’t “the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan.”  Trump provided Maher with his birth certificate, but Maher refused to pay up, so Trump filed a breach of contract suit against Maher.

GavelI’ve written about unilateral contracts before.  In such a contract, the offeror (Bill Maher)  makes a promise (donate $5 million) if the offeree (Trump) performs the requisite terms (proving his father is a homo sapien).  Trump’s claiming that he performed and, therefore, Maher needs to pay up.  But Maher is refusing, so what’s his defense?

It’s a joke!  Maher isn’t the first defendant in a breach of contract suit to claim that a contract was never intended – that the entire deal was based on a joke.  And, indeed, the law generally recongizes the idea that even if the contract looks legit it won’t be enforced if it’s a joke.  See Restatement of Contracts, 2d, § 214(d)-(e) comment c.  Of course, if you could easily avoid your contractual obligations by claiming you were joking, everyone would do it.  See, e.g., Luebbert v. Simmons, 98 S.W.3d 72, 78 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003) (defendant was unable to avoid contract by claiming she was drunk and/or joking).

Studio Audience

So how does Maher prove to the court that he was joking?  The court will look to Maher’s conduct and words.  If a reasonable person would believe that Maher intended a real agreement from his actions, then Maher can’t avoid the creation of a contract.  Id.  If, on the other hand, it was obvious that it was a joke, than the court will find that no contract was formed.  See Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 116, 127-128 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).  In this case, given that this was a comedian performing on a late night talk show before a laughing studio audience – and given the parallels to Trump’s own offer to President Obama – it will be difficult for Trump to show that any reasonable person believed a contract had been formed.  But he’s in the news again, so Trump’s already won.

 

Flash Gordon & The Planet of Liability

0

The 1936 Flash Gordon story Planet of Peril, Chapter 1 to the Space Solders serial, present very interesting issues in air travel and the duty of a common carrier.

Alex Raymond’s classic charters Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe) and Dale Arden (Jean Rogers) made their big screen debut in 1936 during an ill-fated flight in a meteor shower. In what would seriously disturb any traveler in post 9-11 America who complain about taking off their shoes, the pilot told the passengers they could put on parachutes and bail out. The pilot further stated:

There is a parachute under every seat. We were ordered to bring them aboard this morning in the case of any trouble.

In a remarkably limited display of screaming, passengers put on parachutes and bailed out of a trimotor aircraft.

TrimotoraircraftThe Duty of Common Carriers

Everyone who has ridden a bus or taken a plane flight has been on a common carrier.

A “common carrier” is an regulated industry that transports goods or individuals and is responsible for the loss of goods during the transportation. Given the nature of transporting people or goods, a carrier owes a passenger “the highest degree of care.” Brasseur v. Empire Travel Serv., 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 36967, 2-4 (9th Cir. Cal. Dec. 15, 1995), citing Marshall v. United Airlines, 35 Cal. App. 3d 84, 110 Cal. Rptr. 416, 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973).

Common carriers have a heightened standard of care because “during travel a passenger is exposed to numerous hazards while his or her freedom of movement is entirely under the control of the carrier.” Brasseur, at *2, citing Orr v. Pacific Southwest Airlines, 208 Cal. App. 3d 1467, 257 Cal. Rptr. 18, 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).

The duty applies while passengers are in transit and “until they have safely departed from the carrier’s vehicle.” Id. Moreover, “[u]ntil the passenger reaches a place outside the sphere of any activity of the carrier which might reasonably constitute a mobile or animated hazard to the passenger the rule of utmost care and diligence . . . still applies.” Brasseur, at *2-3, citing 110 Cal. Rptr. at 419 (quoting Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729, 306 P.2d 432, 436 (Cal. 1957)).

It is also worth noting what “ditching equipment” is required under the law for commercial aircraft:

stewardess in a life jacket(a) Emergency flotation and signaling equipment required by any operating rule in this chapter must be installed so that it is readily available to the crew and passengers.

(b) Each raft and each life preserver must be approved.

(c) Each raft released automatically or by the pilot must be attached to the airplane by a line to keep it alongside the airplane. This line must be weak enough to break before submerging the empty raft to which it is attached.

(d) Each signaling device required by any operating rule in this chapter, must be accessible, function satisfactorily, and must be free of any hazard in its operation.

14 CFR 23.1415.

Parachutes are not on the list. Just imagine how messy it would be if 787’s had ejection seats and one went off at 39,000 feet.

No Bailing Out on Liability

goThe transcontinental airline was 1) a common carrier and 2) owed Flash and Dale a heightened duty of care.

Given the planetary dangers Earth was experiencing, including the parachutes enabled the passengers to escape the doomed aircraft.

However, if the danger was so great that the plane was required to add parachutes (which no commercial airline does), it probably would have been safer NOT to fly in adverse weather (if a meteor shower can be considered weather) and subject the passengers to the danger of bailing out of a plane without skydiving or survival training.

On the flip side, parachute instructions would make for a very entertaining in-flight safety briefing.

Once the passengers were safely on the ground, the heightened duty of care would not have ended, because parachuting into an unknown area would not leave the passengers safe and the airline free of responsibility. The airline could not argue that the passengers were “outside the sphere of any activity of the carrier which might reasonably constitute a mobile or animated hazard to the passenger,” because the passengers were scattered about the countryside wherever the wind took them.

By way of example, a passenger was not owed a heightened duty because the airline did not warn her about the possibility of a hurricane hitting after being safely delivered to Cancun. Brasseur v. Empire Travel Serv., 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 36967, 4-5 (9th Cir. Cal. Dec. 15, 1995). This case would be very different than Flash’s situation, since the airline did not deliver the passengers safely to their destination. Moreover, the airline also knew of dangerous conditions prior to takeoff from the meteor storm. As such, a Court would likely find an airline that requires passengers to bail out of a plane is not free from ensuring the passengers’ safe rescue, thus ending the airline’s heightened duty of care.

However, getting on an untested rocket ship would be an unforeseeable intervening factor that an airline could not be responsible for continued passenger safety.

A Rocket to Mongo & Heightened Duty of Care

The airline was not the only common carrier in Flash Gordon: Professor Zarkov’s rocket arguably would be considered a common carrier. Moreover, society would require people who build rockets in their backyard to be responsible for the safety of those anywhere near such a potentially dangerous machine.

rocket toyProfessor Zarkov negotiated with Flash to join him on his spaceflight to save the Earth from the planet Mongo on a collision course with Earth. Gordon agreed, provided Dale could join them [Note, unlike the 1980 movie, Zarkov did not kidnap Flash and Dale at gunpoint]. While this is a very basic example of contracting for transportation (without a liability release and covenant not to sue), Zarkov providing transportation to another planet would expose Flash and Dale to numerous hazards while their freedom of movement was entirely under the control of Zarkov. As such, Zarkov would owe them a heightened duty of care on their spaceflight.

Highlighting the dangers to Dale and Flash (and legal risk to Zarkov), Professor Zarkov forgot to turn on the oxygen before take off, causing a significant life threatening risk to his passengers from asphyxiation.

RedishPlanetUpon landing on Mongo, the passengers immediately face numerous risks, including giant lizards, being captured by armed and well-armored soldiers, fighting men with fangs and an alien culture where the men wore short-shorts without pockets (One of the few times in SciFi where the female characters arguably had more clothing).

Professor Zarkov’s heightened duty of care may have ended when they safely arrived on Mongo (albeit for a brief time), just as the airline did not have a duty to warn about a hurricane after getting a passenger safely to her destination. Moreover, it would be unreasonable for Zarkov to be held responsible for the unforeseeable actions of Ming, the Shark Men, Vultan or Princess Aura. Flash and Dale arguably assumed the risk of the unknown when they agreed to fly into space with Professor Zarkov.

The Princess vs The Damsel in Distress 

Finally, it is worth noting that the stronger female character was Princess Aura, Ming’s daughter. Aura was willing to stand up to her father Ming, hit her targets in a ray gun fight, showed no fear in taking immediate action and dressed down those threatening her.  However, she was both possessive and manipulative, which were serious negatives.

Dale Arden, on the other hand, constantly needed to be saved by Flash. A relationship based on perpetually rescuing someone would be as healthy as flying on a commercial airline that required parachutes. Fortunately, the character was stronger in the 1938 Flash Gordon’s Trip to Mars.

Flash Diani
Yes, my brother Gabe Diani before an audition.

 

Django Actually – Contract Questions in Django Unchained and Love Actually

0

PresentsWhat do Django Unchained and Love Actually have in common?  Not much, except a tie to Christmas and contract questions.  Love Actually is my favorite Christmas-themed movie (thanks largely to Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, and Hugh Grant).  Django Unchained, on the other hand, is not a feel-good Christmas movie at all but was released on Christmas day this year (and is a good movie dealing with a very difficult subject).

In addition to their connections to Christmas, both Django Unchained and Love Actually also raise contract questions.  In Django Unchained, Dr. King Schulz tells Django that he’ll give him his freedom and $75 if Django helps Dr. King find and capture (dead or alive) three wanted men.  In Love Actually, rock star Billy Mack (the great Bill Nighy) promises to perform naked on Christmas Eve if his Christmas pop song, Christmas is All Around, is the number one Christmas song that year.  Are either of these promises binding agreements?

To have an enforceable contract, there are a few basic elements that must be met: (1) an offer; (2) acceptance of the offer; (3) a meeting of the minds; (4) each party’s consent to the terms; and (5) execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it be mutual and binding.  See Tyco Valves & Controls, L.P. v. Colorado, 365 S.W.3d 750, 772 (Tex.App.–Houston [1 Dist.] 2012).  Contracts, with some limitations, may be either verbal or written.

ChainLinksIn Django Unchained, Dr. King was clearly making an offer that Django accepted.  There was no misunderstanding over the terms of the agreement and both parties agreed to and wanted the contract to be binding.  So it’s enforceable, right?  Maybe.  One of the many, many injustices wrapped up in slavery – and the U.S. legal systems’s role in perpetuating that horrible system – was that courts refused to enforce contracts to which a slave was a party.  See Sanders v. Devereux, 1860 WL 5729, at *3 (Tex. 1860) (stating that, in general, a slave can neither sue nor be sued, nor can he make any contract which either a court of law or equity can enforce).

The Texas Supreme Court provided one exception to that rule, however, stating a slave can maintain a legal action to obtain his freedom, although he must do so through a guardian.  Id.  So there is a slight chance that Django would have been able to make Dr. King free him once he helped Dr. King find the three wanted men, although he would have had to find somebody to bring the lawsuit on his behalf.  Fortunately, Dr. King followed through on his promise, even though he probably didn’t have to.

Rock StarOn a much, much lighter note, in Love Actually, Billy Mack also makes a promise to the people of Great Britain – he’ll get naked if they make his song number one.  The contract at issue here (and I’m doing all of this assuming US law would apply as I’m no expert on English law) is actually a “unilateral contract.”  This type of contract consists of a promise on the part of the offeror (Billy Mack) and performance of the requisite terms (making his song No. 1) by the offeree (the music-buying audience).  See Tacoma Auto Mall, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., 169 Wash.App. 111, 129  (Wash.App. Div. 2, 2012).

Unlike a regular contract, which is usually executed before either party performs, a unilateral contract is only executed if the offeree performs (e.g., makes Billy’s song No. 1).  Once the offeree performs, then the offeror is bound by the terms of the contract.  So once his song became No. 1, Billy Mack was contractually bound to follow through on his promise.  (Another example of a unilateral contract is the wanted dead or alive reward posters that featured so prominently in Django Unchained.  The courts offer to pay for the delivery of the bad guy and once the bounty hunter shoots the bad guy in reliance on that offer, the courts are obligated to pay up.)

Of course, anyone who tried to sue Billy Mack if he didn’t get naked would have to show that she purchased his song in reliance on his promise.  There’s also the possibility that a court may refuse to enforce the contract – involving public nudity – because it’s contrary to public policy.  See Liberty Mut. Fire. Ins. Co. v. Mandiie, 192 Ariz. 216, 220 (App. 1997) (recognizing that contracts contrary to public policy are void).

Written ContractSo both movies’ contractual plot lines are questionable, not that movies ever worry too much about getting the law right.  Other than that, the two movies have nothing in common, although I recommend watching both of them this holiday season.

 

Firefly & Lessons in Contract Law

25

Firefly was wickedly creative, well-written and had fantastic humor. Spaceships and wardrobe that ranged from Western to Steampunk to Chinese aside, Firefly presented excellent Contract formation issues.

Contract formation consists of 1) Offer; 2) Acceptance; 3) Consideration; and 4) Performance.

In the world of Firefly, it was often 1) Offer 2) Acceptance 3) Gunfight (also known as breach). Let’s review three episodes to examine these contract issues.

Shindig

Consideration in Contract Law involves something of “value” being given up by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor (Nice summary in Wikipedia). In Shindig, the consideration for earning Warrick Harrow’s cattle shipment job was surviving a sword fight with one of Inara’s clients (it also could be a condition precedent, because Mal did have to survive the fight).

Since the old idea that consideration can be a peppercorn, a sword fight does not seem too crazy in a future with space cowboys fighting an oppressive regime.

The Train Job

The Train Job was the second episode in the series. Malcolm Reynolds formed an oral contract with a crime boss named Adelei Niska to steal medical supplies from a train. Niska made a payment for the work to be performed, which involves extracting cargo from a fast-moving train with Alliance soldiers onboard.

The heist was a success, with the exception the Captain and Zoe were stuck on the train and ultimately needed to be “rescued” by Inara after being detained in town.

However, once Mal and Zoe reached the destination of the cargo, they learned the medicine was vital for the survival of a mining town where everyone was suffering from the effects of mining.

Mal’s following actions are best described as contract rescission, which is the unwinding of an agreement. Mal decided to return the stolen medicine to the town and the money back to Niska. Granted, since this was an action show, there was a gunfight and someone sucked through a jet intake before Niska’s men accepted the rescission (non-traditional contract remedies were later sought by Niska in War Stories).

Out of Gas

The contract issues in Out of Gas focused on a salvage ship that found the crippled Serenity with only Mal onboard.

Serenity was heavily damaged from an engine room fire and needed a new compression coil.

The salvage captain boarded Serenity and shot Mal after seeing Mal was telling the truth about Serenity’s damage (this was after Mal offered anything of value in the ship’s hold).

The actions up until the shooting showed the parties went beyond offer and acceptance to performance, because the salvage captain boarded Serenity with the compression coil in hand.

Given the fact payment had not been determined, there was an uncertain term to the contract. However, there was sufficient evidence to show a contract had been formed based upon the conduct of the parties (boarding Serenity with the part Mal requested from the salvage captain).

After being shot, Mal armed himself with the gun from the “Mule” and ordered the captain and crew off his ship. While there was no payment made for the compression coil, the salvage captain breached his agreement when he shot Mal. Keeping the compression coil would have been the proper damage recovery (sure, there is a separate cause of action for shooting someone).

Curse Your Sudden But Inevitable Betrayal

The remedy for a breach of contract is either money damages or equitable remedies. Gunfights in the series aside, Out of Gas focused more on the equitable remedy of specific performance. In the instance of The Train Job, returning Niska’s money was designed to put him in the same place as he was before the contract with Malcolm Renyolds.

So let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job and then I get paid.

Captain Malcolm Reynolds

Firefly essentially was about engaging in contract work for payment. Each episode has different themes on issues of formation, breach or remedies. While the show was certainly not a transactional space adventure with cowboys, the contract issues are very prevalent.