Summary of the Case:
She was asked by Stefan, a movie producer, to perform the dangerous scenes for the leading lady in a movie thriller, "Chasing Chérie" at a salary of $5,000 a week for a six-week period. After Wendy read the script, Stefan presented her with a written contract which specified the $5,000 per week compensation and contained other terms standard in these types of contracts. One of the terms required Wendy "To perform the leading lady's dangerous scenes as called for in the movie script." Wendy and Stefan both signed the contract. After the first week of shooting, for which Wendy was paid, the script called for a chase scene in which the leading lady escaped capture by leaping off a cliff into the river below. The movie director, Milos, decided that the scene would be more effective if revised to have the leading lady elude her pursuers by riding her white horse through a burning field of marijuana. Milos, with Stefan's consent, changed the script accordingly and arranged with a wealthy friend living in Montana for the use of one of the fields where he secretly cultivated marijuana. When Wendy was asked to perform the revised scene, she refused because the fire scene was not in the original script. Stefan responded, "The contract requires you to do the leading lady's dangerous scenes. I told you before we signed it that Milos, the director, might wish to make script changes and you said it was all right." He claims that "Dangerous scenes called for in the movie script" meant the final movie script, which would include any rewrites during the course of shooting. Wendy denied agreeing to script changes or to stunts not called for in the original script. "How am I supposed to know whether I can do stunts that haven't even been written yet?" she asked. As she was getting into her car, the wind blew a hundred-dollar bill against her leg, and she grabbed it and stuffed it in her pocket. A few days later, Stefan called Wendy, and, when she didn't answer, left a message on her voicemail: "Dahling, all is forgiven. You don't have to do the fire scene. Come back and finish the film, and we'll up your salary to $6,000 per week." Wendy checked the employment possibilities and discovered there were none at that time for someone in her profession. She ignored Stefan's request and went to Las Vegas for the rest of the contract period. After returning from Las Vegas, Wendy sued Stefan, alleging he owed her five weeks salary. Stefan counterclaimed that Wendy's replacement cost him $6,000 per week, or a total of $5,000 more than her contract price, and he was due this money.
The term, movie script, refers to the script as it existed when the contract was signed by both parties. Wendy is written in to perform a dangerous act as a part of the film, as it was written in the mutual agreement or the contract they created. As the Parol Evidence rule states, Parties to a complete written contract cannot introduce evidence of oral statements or agreements made at the time of or prior to the signing of the contract. This means that if any oral expression that the script would be subject to change was brought up in conversation, it is irrelevant unless written in the contract. Wendy, being covered by the Parol Evidence rule, is not bound by any oral promises she may have made in reference to changing of the script.
Actors and actresses can be legally bound to the oral promise and mutual agreement in the situation of an on-the-go script change. Stefan had it understood through the agreement that Wendy had understood the change in the script and had come to agree to it. Stefan insist on Wendy doing the act as he believes that she had agreed to the script change, but in order for Wendy to be completely liable in the view of the law, Stefan’s statement has to behold some sort of proof that can confirm Stefan’s legality.
It is confirmed that there was a breach in Stefan’s legality in him trying to get Wendy to ride the horse through the field of burning marijuana. A main point is that a contract to do something prohibited by federal or state statutory law is void. It is made clear that marijuana has not yet been made legal in the state of Montana, where the film is being shot. Therefore, Wendy has no contractual obligations to ride any horses through any fields of marijuana in the state of Montana. Finally reaching the point that Wendy has not breached her contract because the contract is voided due to the illegal or prohibited activity requested by Stefan in the film.
Eventually Stefan decides to fire Wendy from the film, but in committing this act he has breached the contract under the supervening illegality clause. This clause states that when the object of an offer illegal, as best referred to in Avery vs. Bowden (1856) when in which a ship was supposed to pick up some cargo at Odessa. With the outbreak of the Crimean War, the government made it illegal to load cargo at an enemy port, so the ship was excused from performing due to supervening illegality. The party being asked to partake in illegal activity cannot legally be fired for choosing to obey the law. Stefan offers an accord and satisfaction approach into the situation involving Wendy in regard to the discharge of Wendy’s duties. The initial agreement was in violation of the law, so the satisfaction could not be performed. As the closely relates to the illegality clause declaring that illegal performance can never be mandatorily required in a contract. By the nature of law, Wendy never committed a breach by refusing to return to the set. Wendy could have another argument at her advantage proving that the contract contained a bilateral mistake, by definition meaning both parties are not of the same understanding about a material fact directly pertaining to the contract. It was to Wendy’s understanding that the crew knew where she stood on the matters of the stunts as she had agreed to the original scripted performance but had not agreed to the revised copy. A bilateral mistake being present can declare the contract voided if circumstances call.
In regard to Wendy returning to the set after Stefan’s calls, it is completely within the rights of Wendy to not answer Stefan’s phone calls and not call him back. Although Wendy’s duties have been revoked, Stefan is still contractually bound to pay Wendy’s remaining wages from the contract.
The money that is found leaving the set and the money she won at Las Vegas have nothing to do with the contractual obligations that Stefan and Wendy had agreed to and cannot be held liable for the money found on the ground. Stephan has no financial obligation to Wendy for the money she won in Las Vegas. After the parties parted ways, Wendy went to Las Vegas and gambled with her own money on her own time. Since she did not accept Stephan’s offer to return for more money, Wendy cannot sue for any money when she returns to town. The only money that is owed in this scenario is for the one week of filming that Wendy completed. All things considered, Stephan owes Wendy $5,000 for the work she completed before the contract was breached by Stephan.
If Wendy were the one to break the contract, Stephan could have demanded the difference in pay between Wendy and her replacement, that amount being $5,000 in this case. The concept of compensatory damages would entitle Stephan the difference between the promised performance and the value of the actual performance. As the victim of the breach, Stephan is required to mitigate the damages in order to receive compensatory damages or keep the losses to a minimum.