Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Main Line vs. Kim Basinger

No description
by

Serpil E

on 2 December 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Main Line vs. Kim Basinger

1991
Main Line Pictures, Inc. vs. Kim Basinger
Dance in Narrative Film
1903

Capacity
Yes, all parties have capacity
Of age
Mentally sane
Not Intoxicated


Decision
Legality
Consideration
Film by Reiner E Moritz



December 28, 1990- Offer extended to Basinger

January 11, 1991- Basinger expressed intent to act in the movie

January 24, 1991- Agreed to act in role

February 27, 1991- Attorney’s from both sides met and discussed contract

February 28, 1991- Preselling of movie began

April 1991- Basinger changed agents

Introduction
Who Breached?
May 1991- Basinger denied rumors: about not
performing in movie

June 1991- Main Line found out Basinger was
not going to act in movie

June 21, 1991 Main Line filed complaint of
breach of contract

Everything Going Downhill

free form camera movement w/ time editing
by John Evans
1990
Agreement
Offer
Oral
December 28,1990
Acceptance
Conduct
Met with screenwriter and director
Discussion of compensation
Most film industry contracts are offered and accepted in an oral manner



The Great Train Robbery
filmed in Milltown, New Jersey
Directed by Edwin S. Porter

Innovative techniques: composite editing, camera movement, on location shooting, cross cutting (two scenes simultaneously) and hand colored frames

Dance sequences used for: establishing locale, to depict the types of people involved


Counter Argument
BOTH Breached
Promissory Estoppel
Main Line→ reliance on Mighty Wind to have Kim perform

ONLY Mighty Wind
Compensation
Written agreements

NEITHER
Contract was never signed
If signed both could have been held liable
Yes, subject matter of contract was legal

Not contrary to public policy
Conclusion


By: Olivia Mulholland, Zachary Curl Sarah Craig, Michael Cosenza, &
Serpil Ekiz

Were Mighty Wind and Kim Basinger
both liable?
Mainline to Basinger
$500,000 plus additional deferred compensation in original offer
$3,000,000 total agreed upon later

Basinger to Mainline
Perform in movie

`

Court ruled initially in Main Line Pictures’ favor
Kim and/or Mighty Wind had to pay them $9 million in damages

Kim appealed and won
Technicality - ambiguity
Main Line Pictures had to cover the costs of her appeal

Questions?
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,306128,00.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-03-01/entertainment/ca-150_1_boxing-helena-lawsuit

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-23/local/me-42074_1_boxing-helena

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/05/movies/film-the-ins-and-outs-of-boxing-helena.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2
Full transcript