JC Penney, Macy's, and Martha Stewart are embroiled in a large commercial breach of contract case revolving around JC Penney's capture of Martha Stewart and her Martha Stewart collection housewares. The Chicago Tribune explains that Martha Stewart signed a contract with Macy's which obligated her to create and market a line of products in Macy's. Macy's got Stewart, who should be very used to court proceedings, to admit in depositions that the contract also was an exclusivity contract as well as a contract for her name, fame, expertise, and line of products.
This case illustrates precisely why depositions are critical to trial and provide a clear roadmap for trial strategy for both sides.
This case illustrates precisely why depositions are critical to trial and provide a clear roadmap for trial strategy for both sides.
Depositions are the most important tool in discovery for commercial litigation. Both sides of a dispute need to be acutely aware of what each deponent says as well as how they characterize responses.
Here, Stewart was asked by Macy's counsel in court what the essence of her contract with Macy's was. Stewart answered that it included making products bearing her name. She neglected to admit that she thought, and answered, that the contract's essence included exclusivity. This is critical for a breach of contract claim because where contractual language is ambiguous, a court may go outside the four corners (the actual wording on the contract) to interpret the intent of the parties. Here, Stewart, a party to the contract, intended exclusivity. Macy's clearly intended exclusivity. Thus, Stewart's actions in signing with J.C. Penney indicates she breached a material term to the contract.
Clearly there must be more at issue, but based on this limited glimpse into this commercial dispute, its a wonder that Stewart has not tried to work something out to avoid an unfavorable judgment.
If your business is involved in a contractual dispute, contact Nair Law LLC immediately to talk to an attorney to understand how you can protect your business as well as yourself.
Here, Stewart was asked by Macy's counsel in court what the essence of her contract with Macy's was. Stewart answered that it included making products bearing her name. She neglected to admit that she thought, and answered, that the contract's essence included exclusivity. This is critical for a breach of contract claim because where contractual language is ambiguous, a court may go outside the four corners (the actual wording on the contract) to interpret the intent of the parties. Here, Stewart, a party to the contract, intended exclusivity. Macy's clearly intended exclusivity. Thus, Stewart's actions in signing with J.C. Penney indicates she breached a material term to the contract.
Clearly there must be more at issue, but based on this limited glimpse into this commercial dispute, its a wonder that Stewart has not tried to work something out to avoid an unfavorable judgment.
If your business is involved in a contractual dispute, contact Nair Law LLC immediately to talk to an attorney to understand how you can protect your business as well as yourself.
RSS Feed