You be the Judge Argument for MTV According to Curry, y Facts: Adam Curry was n

Question

You be the Judge Argument for MTV According to Curry, y Facts: Adam Curry was n MTV video disc jockey VJ") and host of the MTV NETWORKS V. CURRY 867 F. Supp. 202 District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1994 contract with MTV vided that he would pro- mote MTV programming for MIV's promise to give up its web address. Two problems. One, no exeeu uch a casual way. Two, there is absolutely no possibility tha was free to terminate his website at will but MTV was givin popular Hoadhanger's Ball and MTV Top 20 Vide Countdourn. In the early days of the Internet, whe on his mtv.com site ITV) were not yet online, Curry dreamed up the idea ofa tives in their right mind would give away a web addres contract" could be performed within one year. Cu many major companies (including website with the address "mtv.com. In June 1993, Curry met with MTV vice president this " me his partner. Farber told Curry that TV was giving Matthew Farber to discuss his idea and ask if MTV would to discuss his idea and ask if MTV would interested in mtv.com, but that Curry was free to register and develop the site at his own expense. And he did. Many MTV employees, including senior executives, encouraged Curry's efforts, even giving him materials to upload to the site. Curry and other VJs advertised mtv up its rights to “mtv.com!" forever..Curry's duties could be completed within a year, but MTV's obligations continue indefinitely. For this reason, this pro The verbal assurances of binding contract. mise had to be in writine including senior executives, The verbal assurances of MTV executives did not fom a Argument for Curry: Your honor, we can all see what com on air. In late 1993, MTV began exploring its own online happened here. In 1993, MTV executives were blind to presence. It formally requested that Curry cease use of the mtv.com address. But Curry continued his site, which nally requexted thar Cury ceasve une of commaercial pozential of the Intemnet, so they let Curytesrdhe waters to see if mtv.com would be successful. And now that they have got with the program, they want mtv.com back. But they are too late-they have already contracted away mtv.com had already been accessed by millions. MTV sued Curry for trademark infringement, andto Curry. The Statute of Frauds does not require this Curry counterclaimed for breach of oral contract. MTV moved to dismiss Curry's contract suit, claiming that the could have been completed within one year: Curry could promise between MTV and Curry required a wnting have canceled development of the website at any time, agreement to be in writing. Both parties' performance because it could not be fully executed within one year. You Be the Judge: Did an agreement for rights to a web mtv.com might have ended any time, too. The contract wat address require a writing enforceable and MTV has to pay Curry for its breach.

Explanation / Answer

In this case, MTVN's interpretation was that though the contract performance (i.e. the development of the site) may be completed by Curry within a year of the oral contract, MTVN will remain under obligation forever for providing free rights to Curry for using the domain mtv.com. and thus the contract performance cannot be bound within a year of timeframe. Thus, according to the Statute of fraud, a written contract must have been made and the oral contract is void.

However, Curry's development of the site is terminable by him at any time and MTVN also has its forbearance to declare its rights in the site for so long as the site continues. For example, if the site development takes three months and then it runs for another month and then closed by Curry at his will, MTVN will not have any obligation for providing rights to Curry beyond these four months. With this interpretation of the performance of the two parties, the performance can be completed within one year. The statute of fraud will never look at a contract form the point of view of probable, expected, or actual performance and rather will only observe whether there is any requirement for which the contract cannot be performed within one year. There is no such requirement preventing the contract of June 1993 to not to get performed by one year. Therefore, the contract made in June 1993 cannot be held void on this ground and the agreement of rights to the web address does not require a writing.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Y
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.