box1 header1
Entry Detail
Terms of Use The data on this site is for education, insights, and entertainment, and is not to be used for commercial purposes. If you want to use content for noncommercial purposes, be kind and give us due credit. To read the full Terms of Use, click here.
Options Conduct New Search
Copy Permalink to this Item
 
Manilow Show Falls Apart
Highest Court E.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Investor(s)
Defendants Theatrical Producer(s)
Other Manilow, Barry
Short Description Though not directly involving Barry Manilow, this case is a classic contract breach lawsuit that illustrates many of the common issues and defenses in such cases. Defendant was a theatrical producer and was putting together a Broadway show called "Harmony," about Barry Manilow and featuring his music (presumably Defendant had Manilow's consent). Plaintiff loaned $100,000 to Defendant's LLC, which was formed to organize the performance. For some reason not explained, the show did not proceed and Plaintiff's loan was not repaid. When Plaintiff brought suit, Defendant unleashed an array of defenses to invalidate Plaintiff's claim. Defendant claimed the venue was inappropriate or inconvenient, that there was no personal jurisdiction, and that the contract was unenforceable according to the Statute of Frauds. On Defendant's motion to dismiss, the court found he had "purposefully availed" himself of the jurisdiction by transacting business there, so personal jurisdiction was appropriate; Plaintiff's chosen venue was the place of negotiation, so it was appropriate; the forum was not so inconvenient to the parties and witnesses as to necessitate overriding Plaintiff's choice of forum; there was sufficient evidence of "meeting of the minds" to render the agreement enforceable at this stage of litigation; and the contract was performable within one year, so the Statute of Frauds was inapplicable. However, Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment were also denied. The court found that the emails sent between the parties were insufficient to summarily establish that a "meeting of the minds" did indeed exist. Furthermore, it appears Plaintiff contracted with Defendant's LLC, not Defendant personally, so his action could not, on summary judgment at least, succeed against Defendant. - LSW

Legal Issues
Business Associations Corporations Director & Shareholder Liability
Conflicts of Law Jurisdiction & Forum Forum Non Conveniens
    Personal Jurisdiction
    Venue
Contracts Breach Payment & Performance
  Enforceability Statute of Frauds


Opinions Friedman v. Schwartz
2010 WL 3937304
E.D. New York , September 30, 2010 ( No. 08-CV-2801 (JS)(WDW) )


Friedman v. Schwartz
2009 WL 701111
E.D. New York , March 13, 2009 ( No. 08-CV-2801 (JS)(WDW) )


Errors Do you see something that is not correct?
The Discography is an ongoing project. Some entries in the database are displayed in various stages of completion. If you see spelling or grammar issues, they are likely to be corrected in the near future as they're noticed by editors (they're on the "To Do" list, we promise). But If you notice errors regarding facts, legal conclusions, or other information, please contact us to let us know. We've done our best, but can't assure perfection. Thank you.


Related Searches Parties
Investor(s) ( Plaintiff )
Manilow, Barry ( Other )
Theatrical Producer(s) ( Defendant )

Legal Issues
Business Associations / Corporations / Director & Shareholder Liability
Conflicts of Law / Jurisdiction & Forum / Forum Non Conveniens
Conflicts of Law / Jurisdiction & Forum / Personal Jurisdiction
Conflicts of Law / Jurisdiction & Forum / Venue
Contracts / Breach / Payment & Performance
Contracts / Enforceability / Statute of Frauds

Courts
E.D. New York (highest court)


permalink to this entry