Summary
requiring "some basis of computation" for expectation damages
Summary of this case from Moreno-Godoy v. KartagenerOpinion
Argued December 12, 1918
Decided January 7, 1919
I. Maurice Wormser and Nathan Vidaver for appellant. S.C. Sugarman for respondent.
The action is for breach of contract. For a valuable consideration, the defendant undertook to supply the plaintiff with motion picture films one day in each week for fifty-two weeks beginning October 1, 1914. The pictures were to be exhibited at the plaintiff's theatre. They were to be of the order known as "feature" pictures. The line of division between feature pictures and others may not be easy to define, yet in practice those engaged in the business seem to have little difficulty in drawing it. But the plaintiff was not only to have feature pictures. It was to have the first run of them. This means that the pictures must not have been exhibited before in the immediate locality. The locality is described as the neighborhood of Broadway from Ninety-sixth street to One Hundred and Eighth street in the city of New York. The contract was made in September, 1914. It was no sooner made than broken. The defendant found in one of the plaintiff's competitors a more profitable exhibitor. It refused to supply the plaintiff with first-run pictures. It offered to supply feature pictures, but they were of the second and later runs. They had already been exhibited at other theatres in the neighborhood. The plaintiff attempted to procure first-run pictures elsewhere, but with slight success. It has sued to recover profits alleged to have been lost; and a verdict for $4,500 has been unanimously affirmed.
We think there was error fatal to the judgment in rulings upon evidence received as proof of damage.
The plaintiff was permitted to prove its receipts from other pictures, supplied by other producers, before the breach and after. This evidence was received under objection and exception, but subject to motion to strike out. The motion was later made, with adequate statement of the grounds, and an exception was noted to the denial. The point is fairly raised, and we must determine whether it was error to permit the evidence to stand. The plaintiff's theory is that a jury, analyzing its receipts, would discover uniformities and averages from which the profits of first-run pictures might be approximately measured. Little depends, it is said, upon the ultimate popularity of the pictures as disclosed by later runs. The bait of novelty suffices at the outset. Later runs may involve appeals to experience, but first runs are appeals to faith. The public accepts the offering upon the credit of the producer. Herein, it is argued, is the distinction between the moving picture and the drama. No one can compute in advance the earnings of unknown plays ( Bernstein v. Meech, 130 N.Y. 354). But the argument is that the good-will built up by a producer will give to the first productions of his pictures a uniform return. The certainty or uncertainty of the damages must vary, it is said, with the proved conditions of the business.
It is true, of course, that the conditions of a business affect the possibilities of proof and thus the measure of recovery. No formula can be framed, regardless of experience, to tell us in advance when approximate certainty may be attained. The rule of damages must give true expression to the realities of life. We do not need to determine what the plaintiff's rights would be if it were able to establish the uniformities which it asserts. The sufficient answer is that it has failed utterly to establish them. It did succeed in showing that "feature" pictures were more profitable than others. That is, indeed, the proposition to which the bulk of its evidence was directed. The difference, however, was not constant or even approximately constant. It was subject to the widest fluctuation. Quality counts, it seems, with pictures as with plays. But the plaintiff did not prove its damages by proving the superiority of feature pictures. The defendant was ready to supply feature pictures. They could have been obtained also, for all the evidence shows, from others. The comparison must be between feature pictures of the first run and feature pictures of later runs. The jury were so charged. They were charged that the plaintiff was "limited to the difference in value between first-run feature pictures and second or third-run feature pictures, and not to the difference between feature pictures and other pictures." But there is nothing in the evidence to supply a basis for the comparison. No law of averages, no constant or approximate uniformity of returns, can be gathered by induction from the sporadic and varying instances scattered through this record. The pictures of the first run are few in number. They disclose no semblance of equality in their returns when compared with one another. They disclose a like diversity when compared with pictures of later runs. In this business, as in others, there are times when merit triumphs over novelty. Pictures acquire in one neighborhood a vogue that follows them into another. The indifferent show succeeds by force of the reputation of the actor. The results have all the endless variety of human tastes and fashions. To discover beneath these vagaries a unifying law of averages would be a task in any case. The task is hopeless here where only one day a week is covered by the contract. The plaintiff tries to avoid the difficulty by attributing to the defendant all the losses of the business from one week-end to another. The fanciful theory is advanced that the public will flock to poor shows on six days of the week if there is a good show on the seventh. There can be no stable foundation for a verdict that is built on such assumptions. Nothing but guesswork can place the damages at $4,500 or any other fixed amount.
In these circumstances, there was error in the denial of the defendant's motion to strike out the evidence of the profits and losses of the business. It had been received under objection, and had no place in the record unless connected with the breach. The plaintiff was not required to prove its damages to the dollar ( Wakeman v. Wheeler Wilson Mfg. Co., 101 N.Y. 205). It was required, however, to supply some basis of computation ( Bernstein v. Meech, supra; Todd v. Keene, 167 Mass. 157; Cramer v. Grand Rapids Show Case Co., 223 N.Y. 63); and this it did not do.
There were other errors of a like nature. Experts were permitted to show their experience in other theatres. They told how profits had risen fifty per cent when first-run pictures were exhibited to the exclusion of all others. These theatres were in other sections of the city. They were run under different conditions of competition, with rival houses across the street. Their display of first-run pictures was daily. Only once a week were such pictures exhibited by the plaintiff. The comparison was misleading, and the admission of the evidence erroneous ( Todd v. Keene, supra; Moss v. Tompkins, 69 Hun, 288; affd., 144 N.Y. 659).
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, POUND and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, etc.