Kim Basinger and Mighty Wind Inc. are the defendants and appellants and Main Line Pictures is the plaintiff. Kim Basinger, a relatively famous actress, was sent a screenplay of “Boxing Helena” in December of 1990 by Main Line Pictures. Basinger showed interest and excitement in being the female lead of the movie. Barbara Dreyfus, who was Basinger’s assistant and Mighty Wind’s director of development, set up a meeting for her to meet with Main Line Pictures. Mighty Wind was the company through which Basinger “lent” her acting services, therefore her “loan-out” corporation, and payment for Basinger’s acting was to be made to Mighty Wind, which would pay her for employment. On January 24, 1991, Basinger agreed with Intertalent (her agent at the
…show more content…
Main Line, however, argued there was no distinction between Basinger and Mighty Wind. Main Line said because the services bargained for were Basingers, when Basinger breached, Mighty Wind breached as well and that Mighty Wind was simply a “tax configuration.” The trial court said that everything that was done by Mighty Wind was done by Basinger and Basinger and Mighty Wind were not separated. The jury concluded both Basinger and Mighty Wind entered into oral and written contracts and had breached them. The defendants and appellants are appealing against the $8 million ruling against them from the judgement of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of Main Line Pictures. This is in response to the breach of contract by Main Line and Kim Basinger in the production of the movie “Boxing Helena.” The defendants and appellants are appealing because they disagree on the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of the damages. In addition, the defendants state the special verdicts were prejudicially ambiguous because they failed to differentiate between the liability of Mighty Wind and Basinger by using the term …show more content…
“And/or” is ambiguous as found in Cal. Shipbuilding Corp vs. Ind. Acc. Com. in 1948. Mighty Wind is a separate corporate entity. Corporations are technically separate legal entities different from their officers and shareholders according to Cooperman vs. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. in 1975. The record never disclosed whether Basinger is the sole shareholder of Mighty Wind or officer or direction of the corporation. Usually claimants get shareholders for corporate debts by saying the shareholder is the alter ego of the corporation. We see this in Mesler vs. Bragg Management Co. from 1985. However Main Line never asserted a alter ego theory and rejected both at the trial and on appeal anything of an alter ego theory. In addition, the facts don’t compel only the conclusion that Basinger and Mighty Wind entered and breached the oral contact with Main line. Discussions between Main Line and Mighty Wind at Mighty Wind’s office where both parties agreed it would be between Main Line and Mighty Wind, therefore the written (unexecuted agreements) show an agreement with the corporation only. In the execution copy of the Acting Service Agreement there was a signature line that specified "Mighty Wind Productions, Inc. By Kim Basinger," which signifies Kim Basinger as an agent and there was no separate signature line for Basinger. The Inducement did have a line for Basinger
Main Line, however, argued there was no distinction between Basinger and Mighty Wind. Main Line said because the services bargained for were Basingers, when Basinger breached, Mighty Wind breached as well and that Mighty Wind was simply a “tax configuration.” The trial court said that everything that was done by Mighty Wind was done by Basinger and Basinger and Mighty Wind were not separated. The jury concluded both Basinger and Mighty Wind entered into oral and written contracts and had breached them. The defendants and appellants are appealing against the $8 million ruling against them from the judgement of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of Main Line Pictures. This is in response to the breach of contract by Main Line and Kim Basinger in the production of the movie “Boxing Helena.” The defendants and appellants are appealing because they disagree on the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of the damages. In addition, the defendants state the special verdicts were prejudicially ambiguous because they failed to differentiate between the liability of Mighty Wind and Basinger by using the term …show more content…
“And/or” is ambiguous as found in Cal. Shipbuilding Corp vs. Ind. Acc. Com. in 1948. Mighty Wind is a separate corporate entity. Corporations are technically separate legal entities different from their officers and shareholders according to Cooperman vs. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. in 1975. The record never disclosed whether Basinger is the sole shareholder of Mighty Wind or officer or direction of the corporation. Usually claimants get shareholders for corporate debts by saying the shareholder is the alter ego of the corporation. We see this in Mesler vs. Bragg Management Co. from 1985. However Main Line never asserted a alter ego theory and rejected both at the trial and on appeal anything of an alter ego theory. In addition, the facts don’t compel only the conclusion that Basinger and Mighty Wind entered and breached the oral contact with Main line. Discussions between Main Line and Mighty Wind at Mighty Wind’s office where both parties agreed it would be between Main Line and Mighty Wind, therefore the written (unexecuted agreements) show an agreement with the corporation only. In the execution copy of the Acting Service Agreement there was a signature line that specified "Mighty Wind Productions, Inc. By Kim Basinger," which signifies Kim Basinger as an agent and there was no separate signature line for Basinger. The Inducement did have a line for Basinger