It seems like an awfully difficult task to calculate lost profits to Main Line Pictures in this case. Kim Basinger, a well-known and very reputable actress, walked away from a movie deal causing Main Line Pictures to lose money. The amount of Main Line’s loss can never be determined with pinpoint accuracy, and Main Line would not have made the profit that they indicate they would have. However, is the plaintiff correct and are the claims the plaintiff is bringing forward reasonable?
First, Main Line’s maximum and minimum lost profit amounts should not be revised downward. The 3 million dollars represents an estimate of predictable future cash flows from domestic distribution. The deal not being finalized does not in any way change that. There are those who will argue that it does, but I say that is a ludicrous argument because movie producers have to be able to predict future cash flows early on--before a movie is even released. They need to be able to determine whether it is worth obtaining “credit” for movies, because they need to be able to pay that money back to their lenders.
Main Line also argues that they are entitled to $800,000 in foreign pre-sales, and I believe they also have a legitimate claim in this instance too for the same reason listed above. The $800,000 is an estimate of the future cash flows from potential customers in the foreign markets.
Although Kim Basinger is liable for the lost amount listed above, is she also liable for the 2.1 million dollars lost because the movie makers cast Fenn in place of Basinger when she opted out of the deal? Let’s look at it from this perspective. Would Main Line produce a movie that they expected to lose a large amount of money? I think not. And, as the defense expert in this case clearly mentions, it is not always the actor that attracts movie-goers. He supports this claim with two very popular actors--Bruce Willis and Whoopi Goldberg. In fact, Bruce Willis’ films usually bring in large...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document