Hello everyone, In 2008 Nancy Grace and Patricia Caruso worked together to begin the development of a TV series titled, 'Graces Cases'. Caruso was going to be the executive producer and Grace was going to be the star of the series. Caruso claimed that Grace accepted involvement with the new series and would continue indefinitely, only if Caruso was to maintain the executive producer position. Following many years of marketing and several attempts to sell the series to large networks, CBS finally prepared a contract to create a pilot for the series. The name of the show was then renamed, 'Swift Justice with Nancy Grace' and began airing on TV, following the particulars of their contract. Caruso stated that she arranged to develop and market the series with the expectancy that she would eventually become the executive producer. In 2010, Grace agreed to host the series without Caruso as the executive producer, despite their former contract. With this action, Caruso responding by filing a breach in contract lawsuit, reaching 15 million dollars. The ethical problem that stemmed from this circumstance is that Nancy Grace endorsed a legal contract, which negated her prior contract. After the trial ran its course, the judge sided with Caruso, asserting that the claims were legitimate, denying Grace her request for dismissal from the lawsuit. Grace was ethically accountable for continuing her arrangement with Caruso and made a bad decision by disrupting their contract. Best regards, Jesse McKay, H. (2011). Nancy Grace Sued for $15 Million for Alleged Breach of Contract. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/04/12/nancy-grace-sued-15-millionalleged-breach-contract.html Jesse, you did a great job on your case! As you stated, this case was an undisputed controversy involving an oral contract. Grace argues that this contract is unenforceable under the New York statute of frauds because it is essentially a "restrictive covenant not capable of being performed within one year." While indefinite restrictive covenants are indeed subject to the statute of frauds, this only applies where the agreement cannot possibly be completed within a year. Restrictive covenants are generally barred under the statute of frauds where they are by their own terms indefinite, such as agreements that entitle a party to a fee or commission for as long as it sells or markets an item. In such cases, the statute of frauds applies because, although there is always a possibility that the agreement will cease to be relevant after a year for instance if the parties die or no longer wish to market the item in question these remote contingencies are considered more akin to a termination of the contract, rather than a performance. However, where the contract itself "`include[s] an event which might end the contractual relationship of the parties within a year, defendant's possible liability beyond that time would not bring the contract within the statute. Grace asserts that the Agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law because it contained material terms that were never defined. Specifically, Grace contends that the following terms were not defined: (1) "executive producer;" (2) compensation for Caruso; and (3) the duration of the Agreement. In short, Grace claims that the Agreement was merely an agreement to agree. The parties do not dispute that material terms must be defined for a contract to be valid and that titles, compensation and duration of an agreement constitute material terms of a contract. What the parties dispute in this action, is the application of these principles to the Agreement? Grace asserted other claims against Carruso that there was not a valid contract. Jesse, if you were Carruso, what would of you do differently in reference to creating a valid contract? References: Caruso v. Grace, 11 Civ. 2353 (SAS). (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2011)