Review of the Court Case “Private Movie Co. v. Lee” essay sample

Haven't found the essay you need?

We can write it for you. On time. 100% original.

Order Now
Text Preview

Review of the Court Case “Private Movie Co. v. Lee”


Main Issue of the Paper Should Pamela Anderson Lee (PAL) be recognized liable for breaching a contract to appear in “Hello She Lied” film by Private Movie Co.?

Case Background

A film producer Ben Efraim suited Pamela Andersen Lee for $5,000,000, as he considered her to disrupt a contract to appear in his movie “Hello She Lied”. In 1994 Efraim tried to screen one of the most wanted women and offered PAL a female lead role in his upcoming film “Hello She Lied”.Ben Efraim’s lawyer Michael Blaha, who had handled a case for Pamela Andersen previously, approached Lee with a proposition from Private Movie Co. on a day of October 1994. He said that one of his producer clients had a film which she might be interested in. Lee’s manager recalls, that Pamela liked the character and wanted to do the project.

The sides gathered in November to discuss Pamela’s ideas about the script and her issues related to nudity and simulating sex scenes in the script. Before meeting Efraim, Lee had appeared nude and had performed simulated sex scenes on screen, but this time she did had a problem with it. A few weeks later Lee’s manager called Blaha and gave him a list of what his client would, and what would not allow to be shot. The problems started just after the New Years day 1995. Two weeks before she was expected to start shooting in Florida, Lee refused to perform in “Hello She Lied”. PAL has been suited for $5,000,000. Efraim says she broke contract to appear in a film just before shooting was to begin. However, Lee says she was totally justified.Case Summary. The judge awarded total victory to Pamela Anderson Lee. According to the judge, in this case the sides did not fully agree with terms of oral agreement.

Issue: Did PAL personally consent to perform in a film “Hello She Lied”?

Rule: An oral agreement is just as valued and enforceable as a written one. Both parties must fully agree to its terms. Free and mutual consent of the parties is required (California Civil Code, §1565).

Facts: The negotiation about further Lee’s appearance in HSL began in the restaurant and the oral deal was made. Four days after that lunch in the office of Lee’s agent Ray Mazella the sides agreed PAL would be paid $200,000 to play a part. And Lee’s response was positive. The thing that made the deal seem binding was Lee visited doctor's office in December 1994 for physical examination. Necessary requirement for the production company became the reason for her to take that physical. The fact that she took physical examination indicated that PAL was going to do the movie. The final script arrived a few days before she was to begin a shooting. At that point Lee said that she decided not to do the project.

Conclusion: Efraim hasn't approved that PAL personally consented to perform in his film.

According to the judge, …

Download Full Essay Show full preview


Samples available at the Examples Assignment Lab are for inspiration and learning purposes only. Do not submit any sample as your own piece of work. Every essay belongs to students, who hold the copyright for the content of those essays. Please, mind that the samples were submitted to the Turnitin and may show plagiarism in case of the secondary submission. Examples Assignment Lab does not bear any responsibility for the unauthorized submission of the samples.