Story Case

Mr. George Mason was the owner and proprietor of a moving picture theater; in his theater he had installed a very fine pipe organ. Miss Mary Byrne applied to him to get the position of playing it during the shows. Mr. Mason finally agreed to engage her at $35 per week; she agreed to remain with him for a year at that salary. After about three months, without any cause, Miss Byrne left Mr. Mason and began to play a pipe organ for a rival moving picture theater just across the street. Mr. Mason brought an action to prevent her playing at any other theater. It was shown that she was only an ordinary performer and that many others, as competent as she, might be employed for the same salary. What should be the decision of the Court? In case Mr. Mason cannot have her stopped playing elsewhere, may he recover damages from her?

Ruling Court Case. Cort Vs. Lassard And Lucifer, Volume 18 Oregon, Page 221

Cort was the manager of a certain theater. He engaged Lassard and Lucifer, who were acrobats, to act for him in his theater for a period of six weeks at a salary of $60 per week. After performing for three weeks, Lassard and Lucifer repudiated their contract and entered into a contract to act in a rival theater in the same city. Lassard and Lucifer were only ordinary actors; there was nothing unusual or extraordinary in their performances. But Cort brought this action asking that the Court restrain these two men from acting at the rival theater.

Lassard and Lucifer contended that they had the power to repudiate their agency if they wished, and that Cort could not prevent them from acting elsewhere, since it did not appear that they were actors of unusual skill and ability.

Decision: As a general rule, an agent has the same power to renounce his contract of agency as the principal has to revoke the authority of an agent. Whether in a given case, the agent has the right to renounce his employment depends upon the facts of the case. But, as a general rule, in no case will a court compel an agent to specifically perform his duties. In some cases, if it appears that his services are of unusual kind and skill, and he has contracted to give them to the principal for a given period, the principal may have him restrained from performing the same services for anyone else during the time he is engaged to give the services to the principal. In this case, since it appeared that there was nothing unusual or extraordinary about the acting of these two men, the Court would not restrain them from acting at the rival theater.

Mr. Justice Lord, who delivered the opinion of the Court, said in part: "It results, then, that if the services contracted for by the plaintiff to be rendered by the defendants, were unique or extraordinary, involving such special merit or qualification as to make such services distinctly personal and peculiar, so that in case of a default by them, the same or like services could not be easily procured, nor be compensated in damages, the Court would be warranted in applying its preventive injunction and granting relief; but otherwise, if such services were ordinary, and without special merit and such as could be easily supplied or obtained from others without much difficulty or expense."

Judgment was given for Lassard and Lucifer.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It has been stated, heretofore, that, in most cases, the principal has the power to revoke the authority of his agent for any or no reason, but that this does not, necessarily, mean that he always has the right to do this. In case he does not have the right to revoke the authority, and yet does, he is liable for such damages as the agent has or may suffer from the wrongful discharge. It may be said that the same general rules apply to the renunciation by the agent of his employment. In case the agent has agreed, without consideration, to do an act, we have seen in Thome vs. Deas, he is under no obligation to do the act, and is not liable for damages if a loss results from his failure to do what he promised. If he agrees, for a consideration, to act as agent, and does not, the principal may recover damages for the breach of this contract.

No court will undertake to compel an agent to specifically perform the services he has agreed to perform, whatever may be the contract. But, if his services are of an unusual and extraordinary kind, and he has contracted to give them to a certain person for a stated period, that person may prevent him from giving the same or similar services to anyone else during that period. In the Story Case, however, Mr. Mason is not entitled to have Miss Byrne restrained from playing for his rival, because it does not appear that the services agreed to be given by her were of such unusual merit. In that case, however, she was under contract to serve him for the year, and since she left him without cause or excuse, he is entitled to recover what damages he may have suffered by her renunciation of the contract.