Opinion ID: 775482
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: License to Reproduce

Text: 14 Foad claims that defendants infringed its reproduction rights to build the project by using the revised plot plan without its permission. We conclude from the terms of the contract that Foad granted GenCom an implied license to do just that. The central purpose of the contract was the production of a set of engineering documents for `The Grande Plaza' Commercial Center in the city of Arroyo Grande. Under the contract, Foad agreed to create multiple maps, drawings, and plans for the project and to process these documents with the city. For this service, GenCom agreed to pay Foad a fee of $175,000. Given the amount of money GenCom paid for Foad's services and because part of the agreement was for Foad to help GenCom with its application to the city, it would be surprising if the parties had intended for GenCom to seek Foad's permission before using the plans to build the project. Had that been the parties' intention, one would expect to see the requirement spelled out explicitly in the agreement. But nowhere does the contract state that after the city had granted its approval, GenCom would need to obtain Foad's permission before commencing work. We conclude that the contract gives GenCom an implied license to use the revised plot plan to build the project. 12 15 As evidence that the contract indicates the parties' intent to restrict GenCom's ability to use the revised plot plan without Foad's approval, Foad asks us to consider a legend that appears on the plan. The legend reads: 16 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by, and the property of Foad Consulting Group, Inc. and were created, evolved and developed for use on, and in connection with the specified project. None of such ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used without written permission of Foad Consulting Group, Inc. 17 This legend does not divulge a latent ambiguity in the contract, much less show that under the contract Foad's permission was required before GenCom could start work. It is patent that the plans were developed for use on the specific project that was built. Although the legend states that no plans shall be used without written permission of Foad, it appears on a document that was created after the agreement was made, and presumably was written by Foad or its agent. What's more, the legend would apply, if at all, to projects other than the specified project. Foad offers no explanation of how such a statement calls into question the parties' intent, as manifested by the contract, that GenCom would pay Foad for plans that it could use to develop its property. 13 Cf. Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 959 P.2d 265, 272 (Cal. 1998) (The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added)). 18