c. Which side’s arguments are most convincing? Explain.
| ♥ 0 |
Sanders agreed in writing to write, direct, and produce a motion picture on the subject of lithography (a method for printing using stone or metal) for the Tamarind Lithography Workshop. After the completion of this film, Four Stones for Kanemitsu, litigation arose concerning the parties’ rights and obligations under their agreement. Tamarind and Sanders resolved this dispute by a written settlement agreement that provided for Tamarind to give Sanders a screen credit stating “A Film by Terry Sanders.” Tamarind did not comply with this agreement and failed to include the agreed-upon screen credit for Sanders. Sanders sued Tamarind seeking damages for breach of the settlement agreement and specific performance to compel Tamarind’s compliance with its obligation to provide the screen credit. b. What arguments would support Tamarind’s claim that Sanders was not entitled to specific performance in addition to damages? c. Which side’s arguments are most convincing? Explain. |
Explanation
Person S can make the following arguments:
A judge's grant for impairment does not precisely compensate Person S for the future exposition of the film without Person S's screen acclaim.
A precise calculation of the repayment is going to be far too difficult and require too much postulation.
A subsequent retrospective may be adjudged to be a constant violation of agreement. It may create the danger of an unreported number of litigations. It may be only just to give Person S the agreed-upon acclaim, which is deserved.
Verified Answer
Here, Person S can argue regarding the following:
A tribunal's reward for damages.
An accurate estimation of reimbursement.
An increase in future violations.
