De Haviland v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. - 67 Cal. App. 2d 225, 153 P.2d 983 (1944)

Rule:

In 1937, Cal. Civ. Code § 1980 was repealed and Cal. Labor Code § 2855 was enacted, as follows: A contract to render personal service, other than a contract of apprenticeship as provided in Chapter 4 of this division, may not be enforced against the employee beyond seven years from the commencement of service under it. Any contract, otherwise valid, to perform or render service of a special, unique, unusual, extraordinary, or intellectual character, which gives it peculiar value and the loss of which cannot be reasonably or adequately compensated in damages in an action at law, may nevertheless be enforced against the person contracting to render such service, for a term not to exceed seven years from the commencement of service under it. If the employee voluntarily continues his service under it beyond that time, the contract may be referred to as affording a presumptive measure of the compensation.

Facts:

De Havilland sought a declaratory judgment that her contract to make movies for Warner Brothers was at an end because it had run for seven years from date of execution, the maximum term permitted pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 2855 (formerly Cal. Civ. Code § 1980). Appellant argued that the limit referred to years of actual service and excluded periods of suspension provided for in the contract. The trial court rendered judgment for De Havilland and enjoined Warner Brothers from seeking enforcement. Warner Brothers sought review.

Issue:

Was the argument that the legislature's purpose in amending the provision that became Cal. Labor Code § 2855 was to except personal services contracts from the seven-year limit meritorious?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed but struck the injunctive provision. The court rejected the argument that the legislature's purpose in amending the provision that became Cal. Labor Code § 2855 was to except personal services contracts from the seven-year limit, holding that the amendment was made to clarify what had been redundant language, and that if the legislature had intended to do as appellant suggested, it would have used phrases that referred to "years of actual service," which had not been done. The court struck the provision granting the injunction, finding that there was no evidence to suggest that Warner Brothers would attempt enforcement if not restrained.