However, it is Main Lines choice of Ms Fenn that resulted to lower profit. In other words, while Ms Basinger has liability because of the breach of contract, the loss of potential profits of Main line was not her sole fault. Thus, the decision of the court was reverse by the court of appeals citing that the company has also liabilities. Ms Basingers liability should not be the loss of profits, but the breach of contract which might slap her penalty perhaps not less than five hundred thousand dollars but not more than one million dollars.
Are the following relevant to the determination of lost profits to main line? The computation of Ms Basingers supposed salary of three million in Final Analysis and the comparison of revenues for Basinger films with revenues for Fenn Films are immaterial to the case on two grounds. First, the Basinger film was never started. It would be unreasonable to charge Ms Basinger of the losses on project that was never started. Second, Main line had option to chose actress of the same caliber with Ms Basinger. However, Main Line decided to a lesser known actress.
Is the plaintiffs expert correct in not attempting to estimate revenues for Boxing Helena beyond pre-sale amounts? Yes, I would say so! It seems to me that the plaintiffs expert was right not to attempt to estimate beyond the pre-sale amounts because it would have put the plaintiff to disadvantage situation during cross examination. It seemed that it was the duty of the defense to give estimates of potential earnings proving that with or with out Ms Basinger in the project, the film might still have earned some profits because it is the duty of the producers to ensure its success.
Attempting to estimate any amounts beyond the pre-sale amount may only hamper the plaintiffs arguments. It would not have been fair to use the 1. 7 million advances against domestic revenues as the estimate as it is difficult to predict, and impossible to obtain desired profits. Should Main Lines lost profits be adjusted downward to include estimate of domestic revenues for the without Basinger film? Would it ¦? Yes! Not only for the without Basnger film, but also for their choice of lesser known character that resulted to lesser profits.
Main Lines should not exploit the breach of contract issue to extract money from Ms Basinger because they too have their own liability on the reduced actual earnings of the film when they chose a lesser known actress. Beside, Ms Basingers role in the film is not a guarantee of the films success. As it has been stated A reliable revenue prediction for a specific film is very difficult, and frequently difficult to obtain before the film is released. The testimony of Basingers expert that big stars in a movie do not necessarily translate to big revenues is true.
Indeed, Basingers expert witness provided a list of films with big names that did do well in the box office. Suppose Basinger had remained with the film and assume the 3 million profits shown in the plaintiffs experts minimum damage calculation was correct. It is reasonable to¦ Yes! It would be reasonable for the Main Lines to increase its cash position by three millions dollars whether this cash will go to the Company or even if some parts of this would be given to others.
It could not deny that film production is too costly as there are numerous items that need to have some budget such as, acquiring rights to the script, talent fees to the actors, directors and so forth. This is also includes advertizing, and other promotional activities that need funds. However, the problem that I have here is that, if Ms Basinger had remained in the film, how then there is this damage calculation and the $3 million Main Line pretax cash position would be immaterial.
Had Ms Basinger remained in the film everything would just be fine. The Jurys lost assessment There were some flaws in the jurys lost assessment because it overlooked the liability of Main Line. First, if indeed they felt aggrieved by Ms Basingers decision not to continue with the film and if they really had incurred millions dollar losses because of this, they did not supposed to have push trough the film but filed the necessary case against Ms Basinger.
Instead of doing this, Main Line push through with the film engaging a lesser known character in the person of Ms Fenn, but when the film yielded profits short to what they desire, they blame the result on Ms Basinger. Second, Main Line has still the option to choose actress of equal caliber with Ms Basinger, but Main Line deliberately engages Ms Fenn in the film. In other words, it was the duty of Main Line to insure the success of its undertakings by selecting the right persons. In this case, Main line failed.