Case Study: Brodel Vs. Warner Brothers

Warner Bros vs Brodel:

The California Legislature, in 1927, enacted section 36 of California Civil Code. The section read as follows: “A minor cannot disaffirm a contract, otherwise valid, to perform or render services as actor, actress, or other dramatic services, as participant or player in professional sports, including, but without being limited to, professional boxers, professional wrestlers and professional jockeys, where such contract has been approved by the superior court of the county where such minor resides or is employed. Such approval may be given on the petition of either party to the contract after such reasonable notice to the other party thereto, as may be fixed by said court, with opportunity to such other party to appear and be heard.”
A quarter century into its institution, the validity and application of the statute were tested in Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Brodel.

In 1942, when I7 years old, Miss Brodel, referred to professionally as Joan Leslie, entered into an agreement with Warner Brothers Studios which was subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles under the statute.

The agreement stated that Miss Brodel ought to execute as a movie onscreen character for one year and that Warner Brothers ought to have six progressive options, exercisable over a six-year period, allowing the employer towards the end of every year to extend the season of job for an extra time of 52 weeks. On February 20, 1946, inside a month of attaining her majority, Miss Brodel tried to disaffirm the agreement. In a subsequent suit that followed the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of the contract and the option to extend and Miss Brodel was not allowed to disaffirm the

contract.

In the suit, Miss Brodel asserted that the Superior Court had sanctioned just the first year's agreement and an employment agreement with options is not an employment agreement and that the court did not had the authority to approve such types of contact.
The fact Miss Brodel was given options after the completion of one year’s employment does not make 36 inapplicable. Nothing in that section demonstrates that an agreement to render services with options cannot be affirmed by the court. In contracts of occupation involving minor actors options are considerably more essential for as often as possible the offeror is contracting with persons of no tried capacity or built up skills and who may demonstrate to have no public fame. The pro of allowing one or more alternatives to the employer to expand the term of work gives him the motivation to work with such minors.
Other explanation for refusing the contention of Miss Brodel could be that if the court finds a contract to be reasonable and beneficial to the minor it can be held valid. This explanation finds its origin in the doctrine of parens patriae which states that any authority can be the protector of citizens who are unable to protect themselves.
The requirement for this statute, under which the Brodel case was decided, emerged out of the way that an agreement of a minor, when made by the guardian, does not give the employer a remedy against the minor himself. Unless the minor is a party, no directive can be acquired against him when, if he disaffirms the contract and starts working for a competitor. If the minor has entered into the agreement himself he can disaffirm it. Thus, a statute was needed under which the agreement would be both enforceable against the minor or ex-minor himself and safe from disaffirmance. The California statue satisfies both these reasons flawlessly .