On 1/11/99, Robert A. Kreiss <kreiss[_at_]odo.law.udayton.edu> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the logic of Rano would suggest that copyright
> contracts cannot be rescinded in cases where a breach is so material
> as to go to the heart of the agreement. I suspect most courts will
> not find that palatable.
Putting aside any other criticisms you have of Rano, I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion above. Rano acknowledged that under both California and federal law for a party to justify cancellation of a contract there has to be a material breach. However, the court found that (a) there was insufficient evidence of a material breach and (b) even if plaintiff's allegations were supported by the evidence, they were too minor to constitute a material breach under California law:
"Even if we found Rano's allegations had merit, however, we could not conclude that Sipa materially breached the licensing agreement in light of the fact that the parties' enjoyed a harmonious eight-year relationship (in which Rano received royalties and credit for his work). "After considerable performance, a slight breach which does not go 'to the root' of the contract will not justify termination." Witkin Summary of California Law sec. 795 (9th ed. 1987)."
Rano, 586-87.
In other words, had there been evidence of a material breach, Rano would have found the cancellation of the license to be effective.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:34 GMT