1. PARKER v TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX

2. FACTS ‘Bloomer Girl’ is a musical comedy
There is a contract between parties
Contract provides ‘Guaranteed Compensation’
Movie to be filmed in California
Fox declines to produce ‘Bloomer Girl’
‘Bloomer Girl’ is a musical comedy
Contract gave Ms Parker approval rights
1In August of 1965 Ms. Parker contracted with 20th Century Fox to play the female lead in Fox’s upcoming production the Bloomer Girl
2 The contract provided that defendant would pay plaintiff a minimum "guaranteed compensation" of $ 53, per week for 14 weeks commencing May 23, 1966, for a total of $ 750,000
3The film production is to take place in Los Angles California commencing in May 1966
4Prior to May 1966 defendant decided not to produce the picture and by a letter dated April 4, 1966, it notified plaintiff of that decision and that it would not "comply with our obligations to you under" the written contract. By the same letter and with the professed purpose "to avoid any damage to you," defendant instead offered to employ plaintiff as the leading actress in another film tentatively entitled "Big Country, Big Man" (hereinafter, "Big Country").
6 Article 29 of the original contract specified that plaintiff approved the director already chosen for "Bloomer Girl" and that in case he failed to act as director plaintiff was to have approval rights of any substitute director. Article 31 provided that plaintiff was to have the right of approval of the "Bloomer Girl" dance director, and Article 32 gave her the right of approval of the screenplay.

3. More FACTS Fox instead offers role in movie ‘Big Country’
‘Big Country’ is to be filmed in Australia
Ms. Parker will have no artistic approval
Ms. Parker has 1 week to decide
1 Big Country will be a “western drama”
3 Article 29 of the original contract specified that plaintiff approved the director already chosen for "Bloomer Girl" and that in case he failed to act as director plaintiff was to have approval rights of any substitute director. Article 31 provided that plaintiff was to have the right of approval of the "Bloomer Girl" dance director, and Article 32 gave her the right of approval of the screenplay.

4. Primary Point of View Plaintiff
Owed $750,000 for breach of contract
1 Ms Parker wants to be paid she was ready willing and able to live up to her contractual duties

5. Primary Point of View Defendant
Ms. Parker failed to accept ‘Big Country’ lead
Compensation was same : $750,000
1 Fox’s only defense was that it owed Ms Parker no money due to the fact that she deliberately failed to mitigate or reduce damages by unreasonable refusing to accept ‘Big Country’ lead for the same amount of compensation

6. Secondary Point of View Plaintiff
‘Big Country’ was inferior
Issue of seeking other employment not raised by Fox
Case not proven, Files for summary judgment
In the present case Fox has raised no issue of reasonableness of efforts by plaintiffs to obtain other employment; the sole issue is whether plaintiff's refusal of defendant's substitute offer of "Big Country" may be used in mitigation

7. Legal Issues Did Ms. Parker do enough to Mitigate Damages.
Was New role Different
Was New role Inferior
Is there an issue of Fact to be Determined.
Both parties agree that there was a contract and that Fox breached it when they declined to produce movie. The question before the court is whether the secondary offer of employment was sufficient in mitigating damages from breach of contract.

8. Precedent Cases
Gonzales v. Internat. Assn. of Machinists, supra, 213 Cal.App.2d 817,
Chisholm v. Preferred Bankers' Life Assur. Co. (1897) 112 Mich. 50 [70 N.W. 415];
Williams v. National Organization, Masters, etc. (1956) 384 Pa. 413 [120 A.2d 896, 901 [13]
Machinist Decision holds that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that plaintiff union member, a machinist, was required to make "such efforts as the average [member of his union] desiring employment would make at that particular time and place" (italics added); but, further, that the court properly rejected defendant's offer of proof of the availability of other kinds of employment at the same or higher pay than plaintiff usually received and all outside the jurisdiction of his union, as plaintiff could not be required to accept different employment or a nonunion job.
Chisom decision held that the reasonableness of the employee's efforts, or his excuses for failure, to find other similar employment was properly submitted to the jury as a question of fact. Also Chisom additionally approved a jury instruction that a substitute offer of the employer to work for a lesser compensation was not to be considered in mitigation, as the employee was not required to accept it
William decision was that "Even assuming that plaintiff could have obtained employment in ports other than where he resided, legally he was not compelled to do so in order to mitigate his damages."

9. Legal Reasoning The secondary offer was Different
The Secondary offer was Inferior
1 The secondary offer was Different, Bloomer Girl was to call upon Ms Parkers talents as both an actress and a dancer in a musical comedy and that it was to be produced in Los Angles, where as ‘Big Country was to be a dramatic role in a western and would be filmed in Australia. And that by no stretch of the imagination could the two roles be considered to be equivalent or substantially similar.
2 Additionally, the substitute "Big Country" offer proposed to eliminate or impair the director and screenplay approvals accorded to plaintiff under the original "Bloomer Girl" contract (see fn. 2, ante), and thus constituted an offer of inferior employment No expertise or judicial notice is required in order to hold that the deprivation or infringement of an employee's rights held under an original employment contract converts the available "other employment" relied upon by the employer to mitigate damages, into inferior employment which the employee need not seek or accept