## Facts

- In 1955, plaintiffs developed a television series concept titled “The Underwater Legion,” consisting of a format, 12 story outlines, one screenplay, and a proposed budget.
- Plaintiffs submitted these materials to Ziv Television Programs, Inc. and asserted it was expressly or impliedly understood they would be paid if Ziv used the materials.
- Ivan Tors, a producer employed by Ziv, later participated in developing an underwater-adventure series titled “Sea Hunt,” produced in 1956–1957 and first broadcast in 1958.
- Plaintiffs alleged “Sea Hunt” used and exploited their submitted format and story materials, and that plaintiffs were never compensated.
- Defendants denied actionable use and presented evidence that Tors independently conceived the idea for “Sea Hunt,” and argued no enforceable contract existed and no protectable similarities were shown.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict on an express or implied-in-fact “idea submission” contract theory, making judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) improper.
2. Whether an idea and related submission materials may be the subject of contractual compensation despite arguments that the idea is not protectable as property.
3. Whether Ziv could avoid liability based on claimed limits on a corporate officer’s authority where plaintiffs dealt with a vice president under circumstances suggesting the company solicited submissions with an expectation of payment if used.
4. Whether evidence of access, similarity/use, and value was sufficient to submit liability and damages to the jury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the JNOV because, viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there was substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an understanding to pay if used, use of plaintiffs’ materials, and compensable value.
- The court left undisturbed the order granting a new trial based on the trial court’s assessment of evidentiary insufficiency, so the case proceeded to retrial rather than reinstatement of the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court may not grant JNOV where substantial evidence supports the verdict; conflicts in the evidence are resolved for purposes of JNOV in favor of the prevailing party, and the proper remedy for close or conflicting proof is a new trial rather than JNOV.
- An idea submission may support recovery on an express or implied-in-fact contract theory when the submission occurs under circumstances showing the recipient understood payment was expected if the idea or materials were used; copyright-style “protectibility” is not required for the contract claim.
- A production company may be bound where a plaintiff submits materials to a high-level executive who appears authorized to solicit or negotiate programming ideas; internal, undisclosed limits on authority do not necessarily defeat apparent authority or an implied-in-fact promise to pay.
- Evidence of access plus similarities/use, together with evidence that submitted development materials have market value, can be sufficient to support liability and damages for an idea-submission contract claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs presented enough evidence to support a jury finding that Ziv and Tors used plaintiffs’ submitted television series materials under an express or implied promise to pay, requiring reversal of the JNOV; however, because the trial court’s new trial order remained in effect, plaintiffs were entitled to retry the case rather than immediate reinstatement of the original verdict.


Donahue v. Ziv Television Programs, Inc., 245 Cal. App. 2d 593, 54 Cal. Rptr. 130 (Ct. App. 1966)