Dell v. Whedon (1984)
Main issue: Satisfactory manuscript
Author Julia Whedon and Dell Publish Company entered an agreement for a book in 1974 based on a 12-page outline by Whedon. A $20,000 advance against royalties was promised. Dell paid $8,000 of it upfront. When Whedon submitted the first half of the manuscript, her editor at Dell expressed "unqualified enthusiasm." There were no suggested editorial changes, and a second installment of the advance, $6,000, was paid to Whedon. In 1978, when Whedon submitted the final manuscript, the editor said it was not what was expected. Soon thereafter Whedon received a rejection notice. Whedon then interested Doubleday in the manuscript, and Doubleday advanced her $15,000 against royalties. Meanwhile, Dell decided it wanted Whedon to return the $14,000 it had paid in advances, claiming that Whedon's manuscript had not meet Dell's standards for "form, style and content." The judge ruled that Dell had misled Whedon into thinking it was supportive of the manuscript, at least to the point that the second installment on the advance was paid, and owed her at least a detailed explanation of its problems with the manuscript and an opportunity to revise it. In short, the court said that a publisher has a contractual obligation to work with an author in the editing process. Dell, the judge said, had acted in bad faith. Whedon was allowed to keep the $4,000 paid in advances.
| DETAIL
577 F. Supp. 1459 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
Calvin R. House. "Good Faith Rejection and Specific Performance in Publishing Contracts," Brooklyn Law Review, Volume 51 (Fall 1984), Pages 95-145. |
|
