美国合同法案例Wood-v.-Lucy--Lady-Duff-Gordon

Woodv.Lucy,LadyDuff-Gordon222N.Y.88,118N.E.214(1917).Facts•Theplaintiff,OtisF.Wood,wasatopNewYorkadvertisingagentwhoseclientsincludedmajorcommercialclientsaswellascelebrities.•Thedefendant,•Lucy,LadyDuff-Gordon,styledherselfas“thecreatoroffashion”,wasaleadingdesigneroffashionsforhighsociety.(hercouture服装设计labelknownasLucile,wasaleadingdesigneroffashionsforhighsocietyaswellasthestageandearlysilentcinema无声电影,andwasasurvivorofthe1912sinkingoftheRMSTitanic.)Thethingswhichshedesigned,orotherthingslikefabrics,parasolswereofhighvalueinthepublic’smindwhenissuedinhername.FactsD•LadyDuff-GordonsignedacontractwithWoodgivinghimtheexclusiverighttomarketgarmentsandotherproductsbearingherendorsementforoneyearbeginningonApril1,1915.(andthereafterfromyeartoyearunlessterminatedbynoticeof90days)ThiscontractgaveLucyDuffGordonhalfofallrevenuesthusderived.PtheexclusiverighthalfofallrevenuesFacts•Wood'sonlydutiesunderthecontractweretoaccountformoniesreceivedandsecurepatentsasnecessary,butifWooddidnotworktomarkettheclothes,nomonieswouldbereceivedandnopatentswouldbecomenecessary.•Aroundthesametime,Duff-GordoncameupwithanideatomarketalineofclothingforthemassesandbrokethepurportedagreementbyendorsingproductssoldbySearsRoebuckandWoodsued.Facts•Theplaintiffinsistedthatthedefendantplacedendorsementsonclotheswithouthisknowledgeandinviolationofthecontract.Facts•ThedefendantdefendedonthegroundsthatnovalidcontractexistedandthereforesincethePhadnotmadeanexpresspromisetodoanything,theDcontendedthattheagreementwasinvalidandcouldnotbeenforcedforlackofconsideration.Facts•ThetrialcourtdeniedLadyDuff-Gordon’smotionforajudgmentonthepleadingsandfoundforWood.•Theintermediateappellatecourtreversedthetrialcourt’sjudgementonthegroundsthatthecontractlackedmutualitybecauseWoodneverexpresslypromisedtodoanything.•WoodthenappealedtotheCourtofAppealsofNewYork.FactsIssues•1)Mayapromisetousereasonableeffortsbeimpliedfromtheentirecircumstancesofacontract?•2)Cananimpliedpromisetousebesteffortsbeconsideredvaluableconsideration?•3)Canthedutyofgoodfaithcompensateforvaguenessinanagreementtoavoidinvalidationofacontractclearlyintendedbytheparties?HoldingandRule(Cardozo)•Yes•Thelawhasoutgrown革除或放弃itsprimitivestageofformalitywhentheprecisewordwasthesovereigntalisman法宝.Ittakesabroaderviewtoday.•AlthoughthePdidnotpromiseinwordsthathewillplacetheD’sendorsementandmarkettheD’sproducts,hispromiseactuallycanbeimpliedfromhisusingreasonableeffortstodoso.•Apromisemaybelacking,andyetthewholewritingmaybe“instinctwithanobligation,”imperfectlyexpressed.ReasonsReasons•Thecourtheldthatitwasclearfromthetermsandrecitalsanddutiesunderthecontractthatbothpartiesintendedtodowhatwasreasonablynecessarytomakeitasuccesssothatwouldbeprofitstodivide.Theimplicationofsuchapromisecanfindsupportsinmanycircumstances.•1.TheacceptanceoftheexclusiveagencymeantthatWoodhadacceptedthedutiesofthatagency.•2.TheP’sbusinessorganizationwillbeusedforthepurposeforwhichitisadapted.•3.BecauseLadyDuff-Gordon’ssolecompensationwasasplitoftheprofits,therewouldbenoefficacy功效,效力tothetransactionunlesstherewasanimpliedpromisetousebestefforts.•4.TheP’spromisetogiveone-halfoftheprofitsandrevenuesresultingfromtheexclusiveagencyandtorenderaccountsmonthlywasapromisetousereasonableeffortstobringprofitsandrevenuesintoexistence.Disposition•ThejudgeoftheAllelliateDivisionbereversed.Conclusion•Thiscaseisanexampleofthecourtimposingadutyofgoodfaithonapartytoperformanimpliedpromise.Cardozodispensedwithformalismtoenforceapromisethatwasimpliedwhenviewedinthecontextofnumerousaspectsoftheagreement.Animpliedpromiseissufficienttoconstituteconsideration.