## Facts

- Julian Blaustein, an experienced motion picture producer, claimed he conceived and packaged a proposed film adaptation of *The Taming of the Shrew* to be shot in Italy, starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, directed by Franco Zeffirelli, with planned additions and deletions to the play.
- Blaustein asserted he disclosed the package to Burton and/or the Burtons’ representatives with the understanding that if the idea were used he would be compensated and/or given producer status, credit, and fees.
- A motion picture fitting those core elements was later produced with Burton and Taylor starring, Zeffirelli directing, an Italian location, and similar modifications to the underlying play.
- Blaustein alleged he received no compensation or credit and was not used as producer.
- He sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidential relationship, and services rendered/benefits conferred.
- The Burtons answered, denied liability, and raised defenses including the statute of frauds and statute of limitations.
- After taking Blaustein’s deposition, the Burtons moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for the Burtons.

## Issues

1. Whether the record showed triable issues that an express or implied-in-fact contract obligated defendants to compensate Blaustein for use of his submitted idea and package.
2. Whether triable issues existed on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract based on defendants’ alleged use of the idea without payment.
3. Whether triable issues existed that the idea was disclosed in a confidential relationship that defendants breached by exploiting it without compensation.
4. Whether the statute of frauds barred the alleged agreement as a matter of law on the summary judgment record.
5. Whether the claims were time-barred as a matter of law, including when “use” of an idea occurs and when any implied promise to pay accrues.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for the Burtons and remanded.
- Triable issues existed as to whether defendants’ conduct and industry practice supported an implied-in-fact promise to pay for the disclosed package if used.
- Triable issues existed as to whether defendants used the submitted package and were unjustly enriched.
- Triable issues existed as to whether a confidential relationship arose from the circumstances of disclosure and was breached.
- The court declined to hold, on this record, that the statute of frauds or statute of limitations barred the claims as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract may be inferred from conduct where an entertainment idea is disclosed with an expectation of payment and the recipient knows or should know of that expectation, and then uses the idea.
- A concrete “package” combining elements such as casting, director, location, and creative changes may have compensable value beyond an abstract concept, making “use” and acceptance questions for the trier of fact.
- Restitution may be available where a defendant knowingly benefits from another’s disclosed idea or services under circumstances making nonpayment unjust; whether the defendant “used” the submission is typically factual.
- A confidential relationship may arise from circumstances of trust and reliance even absent a formal fiduciary role; its existence and breach may present fact questions.
- Statute-of-frauds and limitations defenses may turn on fact questions about the contemplated performance and when actionable “use” and any implied promise to pay occurred, making summary adjudication improper where the record is not conclusive.

## Conclusion

The court held that disputes over implied contractual obligation, use of a submitted film package, unjust enrichment, confidentiality, and the timing of accrual could not be resolved on summary judgment, requiring further proceedings to determine liability.


Blaustein v. Burton, 9 Cal. App. 3d 161 (Ct. App. 1970)