## Facts

- Victor Desny, a writer, prepared a literary and dramatic composition and synopsis based on the life of Floyd Collins.
- Desny contacted Billy Wilder’s office and communicated a detailed synopsis through Wilder’s secretary.
- Before disclosing the synopsis, Desny asserted he expected to be paid if the material was used.
- Desny alleged the defendants accepted the submission under an understanding that payment would be made if they used it.
- Defendants produced and released a motion picture (“Ace in the Hole” / “The Big Carnival”) that Desny claimed used his synopsis and idea without compensation.
- The trial court granted defendants summary judgment; Desny appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Desny’s claim sought compensation for a mere abstract idea or for a submission offered for sale under a contractual understanding.
2. Whether the evidence could support an express contract or an implied-in-fact contract obligating payment upon use of the submitted material.
3. Whether the record presented triable issues of material fact under any tenable theory, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held that, although an idea is not protectable as property by itself, the originator may recover on an express or implied-in-fact contract when the idea is submitted for sale and used.
- Viewing the record in Desny’s favor, triable factual disputes existed as to whether the submission was made and accepted with an understanding that use would require payment.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Ideas, standing alone, are generally not exclusive property; liability for use of an idea ordinarily arises from contract rather than from a property theory.
- An implied-in-fact contract may be found when a person discloses an idea with an expectation of payment, the recipient knows or should know payment is expected if the idea is used, and the recipient voluntarily accepts and uses the idea.
- Courts should distinguish implied-in-fact contractual obligations (based on mutual assent inferred from conduct) from quasi-contract or implied-in-law restitution theories (imposed without agreement).
- Summary judgment is improper where the evidence permits a reasonable finding that an express or implied-in-fact agreement existed and material facts about the parties’ understanding and acceptance are disputed.

## Conclusion

The court held that an idea submission can support recovery when it is offered for sale under circumstances showing an understanding—express or implied in fact—that the recipient will pay if it uses the idea, and it found disputed facts on that issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment.


Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal. 2d 715, 299 P.2d 257 (Cal. 1956)