CBS suit claims that no mutual contract has ever existed between itself and Hanzer Holdings and Arlita and that a judge should end the three-year legal fight. The origins of this lawsuit are the 2016 reboot of MacGyver and a 1980s production deal that preceded the original MacGyver series. CBS argues that it did not violate any contract because the parties did not mutually agree upon a contract in the first place. Hanzer and Arlita’s “claim is a binding, enforceable agreement cannot, as a matter of law, be a valid contract because there was never offer and acceptance.”
CBS suit explains that “Paramount Pictures Corporation and HenryWinkler/John Rich Productions exchanged a series of offers and counteroffers, including a proposed agreement in December 1984 and a counteroffer in October 1985, respectively, and that neither party ever accepted the other’s offer.”
In an amended complaint, CBS argues “changed their allegations about what contract they are suing on” and raised the issue of whether there was a “meeting of the minds” decades ago when it came to key terms in the agreement. In a Dec. 2 filing, CBS argues, “Such a failure to reach a meeting of the minds on all material terms ‘prevents the formation of a contract even though the parties have orally agreed upon some of the terms, or have taken some action related to the contract.'”
“The Proposed Agreement contemplated that each specific television show produced thereunder would have its own separate joint venture agreement between the parties related to that television show,” states the filing, which is embedded below. “After the parties acknowledged, in writing, that an early draft of the Proposed Agreement was signed ‘in error,’ they continued to negotiate for several years.”
“After three-plus years of litigation, over a dozen depositions, hundreds of written discovery requests, and thousands of pages of documents exchanged, the combination of documents Plaintiffs proffer as the alleged contract they seek to enforce is unenforceable as a matter of law due to the lack of mutual consent,” states the filing. “The issues regarding contract formation are ripe for summary judgment given Plaintiffs’ admissions and acknowledgment that whether the documents they point to in their FAC amount to an enforceable ‘final contract’ is a legal conclusion for this Court to decide. … Twelve jurors cannot save Plaintiffs from their own words, and CBS respectfully requests that the Court grant summary judgment rather than force a jury to try to find a contract that Plaintiffs themselves cannot identify.”
– Excerpt from an article for The Hollywood Reporter by Ashley Cullins. Read the full article here.
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Please note that the information contained within this news post and site is offered simply as a consideration to visitors who are in the entertainment industry and are seeking to learn more about various areas of entertainment, be it in film, movies, television, music, digital, new media, film financing, merchandising and/or branding. As such, the information so provided should never be construed as legal advice. If you need further assistance or legal advice for your specific matter, please do not hesitate in contacting an entertainment attorney (film, music, digital, licensing, financing) here in Los Angeles, California at The Hollywood Lawyer by(1) emailing us at info@hollywoodlawyer.com; (2) calling us at (323) 300-4184; or (3) filling out our online form.
