Hollywood Fantasy v. ZsaZsa

HF wanted to make money by selling vacation packages which, for the low low price of just seven thousand five hundred dollars per person, you too could star in a home video with whatever aging yet recognizable celebrity they could get to show up to the gig. We were not given the names of the actors involved there, but the presumption is that two different “stars” would be onsite for the wannabe’s to read scripts with and “act.” They’re first attempt in Palm Springs lost big bucks, but HF decided to try it again in Texas. HF was in negotiations with Ms. Gabor to grace Texas with her cop-slapping presence because she is, after all, one of the original Hollywood divas. But ZsaZsa decided not to go because she thought she had some real acting and publicity opportunities, and HF allowed for this sort of thing in their instrument of negotiation. Despite evidence to the contrary, the lower courts decided that ZsaZsa had a valid contract with HF. (Think back to our discussions last semester of counteroffers....)

Then they decided she breached that contract, even though she had given TIMELY notification that she would not be at the fantasy function but was willing to MITIGATE by getting a replacement and that she would be happy to discuss a future performance with HF. HF declined her offer. They also had only sold 2 packages to the gig, and do not mention the other acting person of note that supposedly was to be there. If there was one. Subsequently, the second gig got cancelled. HF attempted to recoup all losses and fantasy future profits by dumping the entire blame for their lack of financial finesse and poor, poor event planning on ZsaZsa because she knew how to marry rich and because many people didn’t like her, anyway.

The lower courts found in their favor and awarded BIG bucks. Upon appeal, however, the higher courts engage in a higher form of reasoning and reduced HF’s award to some fiddy thousand bucks.

What we needed to get from this case, from the DAMAGES section of the book, is that:

1. (yet again) new biz ventures don’t get expectation damages (estimated profits) because they must be shown with “reasonable certainty”

2. courts will let you guestimate “actual” damages without a showing of receipts so long as they sound reasonable and the court likes the guy who is “testifying” as to the out-of-pocket costs spent in “reliance” on ZsaZsa’s participation

3. don’t use subjective terms like “significant” in reference to a career opportunity because then the interpretation is left in the hands of a jury who may not actually be qualified to make such a determination (they are not agents)

4. “actual damages may be recovered when loss it the natural, probable and foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s conduct” -- and here, even if it’s not, so long as the so-called breacher does not bring evidence to refute this claim and point out some obvious defects and errors in the leech’s (plaintiff’s) platform.