Random House v. Gold (1979)
Main issue: Satisfactory manuscript
Author Herbert Gold and publisher Random House entered an agreement in 1970 for four books. An advance against royalties of $150,000 was part of the agreement, payable at $10,000 a year. When Gold presented the third manuscript in 1976, Random House turned it down as unsatisfactory. Also, Random House asked his advances to be returned, $60,000 less the $11,579 that the first two books had earned for him in royalties. Gold sued, arguing that it was financial considerations, not the quality of his work, that prompted Random House to deem his third manuscript unacceptable. Random acknowledged that the original agreement was financially a mistake based on sales of Gold's first two books under the contract. The issue, then, was whether the financial prospects for a book constitutes an unsatisfactory manuscript after the contract is agreed to. The judge ruled for Random House, agreeing that "the likelihood of a book's commercial success" can be grounds for terminating a contract. About the money, the judge ordered that Gold be paid half of the promised advance ($75,000 less the $11,579 that the first two books had earned already. Authors were distressed at the ruling, which echoed a 1975 case (Safire v. Morrow,) that, in effect, a book contract is merely an option to publish, not an agreement to publish.
| DETAIL
464 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd mem., 607 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1979).
Mark Fowler. "The 'Satisfactory Manuscript' Clause in Book Publishing Contracts," Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts, Volume 10 (1985), Pages 119-152. |
|
