The plaintiff, Willy Ferrucci, is suing the defendant, Dominique Douaola, for payment of studio and production time for his new album. Mr. Ferrucci commented he left a message on the defendant’s answering machine about the available dates and charges for the studio time. However, Mr. Douaola confirmed the dates with the plaintiff but never mentioned the charges. Additionally, the defendant continued by stating he had performed numerous times for the plaintiff for no charge and believed those performances were payment enough for the studio time.
My Verdict
Although the plaintiff in this case left a message stating he wanted compensation for the studio time which would be used, he did not receive a response acknowledging the fee. In the case of Smith v. House of Kenton Corp., 209 S.E.2d 397 (1974) the court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that “an offer and acceptance must be communicated.” Furthermore, there must be a mutual collaboration and approval for there to be any type of contract created between the two parties. I applied the case of Zamore v. Whitten, 395 A.2d 435 (Maine 1978) where the court declared “there must be a meeting of the minds or “mutual assent” for the parties to be bound to the contract.” Since Mr. Douaola never agreed or accepted the terms Mr. Ferrucci set out, a valid contract was never created.…show more content… Dominique Douaola, in this case, despite the fact she had sympathy for the defendant. Unfortunately, even though Mr. Ferrucci composed a justifiable offer for compensation for the recording studio session, Mr. Douaola did not reciprocate with an agreement to the terms. Therefore, there was no contract and no detrimental reliance.
