The suit filed by Carol Cameron against Colossus Studio is likely to bring little positive effects to the plaintiff because the court is likely to consider the breach of contract from the part of the studio as the minor breach and may award zero damages for the company to pay off to the actress. At any rate, the company offered Carol Cameron the same payment and the same timeline for starring in another film which is comparable in the quality and possible return on investments. The cancel of the first film offered by the studio, The Days of Passion, should be justified by the company, although to prove that the company could not make the film. At the same time, the alternative offer by the company to the ac tress matched conditions of the signed contract and the actress could not suffer substantial, if any losses after the breach of the contract by the company. Therefore, the court is likely to take the decision that the breach of contract was the minor breach and, therefore, zero damages have to be awarded as the company would pay the same amount of money to the actress for the same time spent on shooting the film, as they agreed upon in the initial contract.
Baasically, the court is likely to take the side of Colossus Studio because Mariana Martinez’s breach of contract. The court is likely to grant the company with the decree of the specific performance because the company and Mariana Martinez had the signed contract. The company counted on Mariana Martinez starring in the series till 2006 and that term was clearly defined in the contract. However, the actress breached the contract and announced that she is leaving Hollywood and stops starring in the series. Thus she breaks the terms of the contract. In this regard, the court could consider awarding money damages to be paid off by Mariana Martinez to the company, but the actress could hardly pay off the money Colossus Studio would lose after Martinez’s breach of contract. Alternatively, the court may also consider the possibility rescission but rescission is unlikely to occur because there is no obvious dispute concerning the breach of the contract because Mariana Martinez refused from her duties one-sidedly, there is no dispute, while courts are often unwilling to interfere into written contracts signed by parties, especially, when the breach of contract is obvious as the case of Mariana Martinez.
The court could consider the case of Bozo as minor breach because the company has breached the contracts in terms of changing the suppliers of certain products, namely the dishwasher was General Electric instead of Maytag, while the shades of paint used for the interior of the building were similar, although the manufacturer of the paint differed. In such a situation, the court could award actual damages being paid off by Bonzo to Mogul, i.e. Bonzo would pay the difference in the value of the dishwasher and paint the company used compared to the dishwasher and paints Mogul required in the contract.
Yang is likely to win the case, while the court should oblige Mogul to pay off $500,000 to the artist. In this regard, the court should take into consideration the fact that Yang did not breach the contract from his part. He did not cause any material damages to Mogul with his painting. In addition, the court could involve witnesses, for instance Mogul’s wife, who admires the portrait and proves that the artist’s has mirrored the real Mogul. Moreover, the court can rely on the expert opinion since art critics and connoisseurs also assess the painting positively. Hence, Yang have to receive his payment upon the court ruling.