Opinion ID: 345093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the alleged oral contract

Text: 8 As developed in more detail in the district court's reported opinion,409 F.Supp. 122, the genesis of this case was an earlier suit brought by Big Seven against Apple Records and other music companies, alleging that a Lennon-written song, Come Together, infringed Big Seven's copyright in a song entitled You Can't Catch Me. That action was settled on October 12, 1973, with Lennon agreeing as part of the settlement to record in his next album three songs on which Big Seven held copyrights. Lennon at that time was working on an album of rock and roll hits, not written by him, coming from the 1950s a nostalgia-type album and it was contemplated that this album would contain the three Big Seven songs required by the settlement. At some point after the settlement date, however, Lennon and the nostalgia album's producer, one Phil Spector, had difficulties, as a result of which Spector took possession of the tapes made for the album. 409 F.Supp. at 124. Lennon was unable to retrieve his tapes until mid-1974, by which time he had begun work on another album, entitled Walls and Bridges, which did not contain the three songs belonging to Big Seven, as required under the settlement agreement. Walls and Bridges was released in September, 1974. Levy considered this release a breach by Lennon of the Come Together agreement and requested a meeting with Lennon, out of which the first phase of this appeal arose. 9 The meeting was held on October 8, 1974, at a New York City supper club. Big Seven and Adam VIII claim that an oral agreement was reached that night by which Levy was authorized to distribute Lennon's forthcoming nostalgia album by mail order, with television advertising used to solicit orders. The district court found, however, that no such oral agreement was entered into, relying in part on the fact that Lennon did not enter the October 8, 1974, meeting as a free agent because Lennon and Apple were obligated to EMI and Capitol under a complex series of agreements, 409 F.Supp. at 125. The court concluded that Levy had failed to show that an agreement was made for Levy to have United States mail order distribution rights for Lennon's rock and roll album. The court did find that there was a tentative agreement for Lennon to provide 15 or 16 rock and roll songs in the event that Lennon in fact made a record album for Levy, but also found that there was a failure to reach any agreement on the amount or method of calculation of Lennon's royalty. Id. at 127-28. 10 We cannot overturn the judge's finding that no oral agreement was reached because the finding was not clearly erroneous in the light of the evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). This is true even though Lennon invited Levy to hear his previously recorded rock and roll tapes on the day after the supper club meeting, rehearsed for a recording session at Levy's farm, went through a recording session in late October, and gave Levy tapes of the songs he intended to include in the rock and roll album, in addition to making statements to musicians and friends of Levy that he was making an album for Levy, 409 F.Supp. at 128. It is true despite the fact that, in late December, 1974, Lennon was Levy's guest in Florida and despite the fact that, on January 9, 1975, Levy wrote Lennon's attorney asserting that the October, 1973, settlement had been superseded by an agreement for Lennon to make a record that Levy would market throughout the world by use of television advertising. 11 All of these matters were duly considered by the district court, which found on the basis of all the evidence primarily oral testimony, the credibility of which must be determined by the trial judge that no contract was entered into on October 8, 1974, by Lennon or Apple granting Levy or any of his companies the right to produce or distribute Lennon's rock and roll album. As the court below noted, the fact that Levy and plaintiffs experienced difficulty in formulating the terms of the contract for presentation to the court was sufficient in itself to cast doubt on whether there was ever a contract at all. Id. at 126. We need not elaborate further on the district court opinion on this phase of the case; neither its conclusions nor the findings on which they were based are reversible.