## Facts

- Edgar C. Faris developed an idea for a television sports quiz show and sought Richard Enberg, a sports announcer, as a potential host/collaborator.
- Faris met with Enberg and presented the show concept; Enberg expressed interest in hearing the proposal.
- A sports-quiz program with similarities was later produced and broadcast by Enberg and other media-related defendants without Faris’s participation or payment.
- Faris filed two superior court actions (later consolidated), asserting claims including express contract, implied contract, breach of confidence, and “plagiarism.”
- After an earlier appeal left only an implied-in-fact contract theory (and related claims) potentially viable, defendants moved for summary judgment supported by discovery materials.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining theories; Faris appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record presented a triable issue of material fact that Faris and Enberg formed an implied-in-fact contract to pay for use of Faris’s idea.
2. Whether the record presented a triable issue that defendants were bound by, and breached, a duty of confidence regarding Faris’s idea submission.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- No triable issue existed that Enberg objectively assented to an implied promise to pay if the idea were used.
- No triable issue existed that the circumstances created a confidential relationship or an enforceable obligation not to use or disclose the idea without permission or compensation.
- The court distinguished pleading sufficiency (demurrer) from evidentiary proof required to defeat summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract requires mutual assent and consideration proven by objective manifestations of agreement inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances.
- In an idea-submission case, liability based on implied-in-fact contract requires evidence the idea was offered on the condition of payment if used, and that the recipient knowingly accepted the disclosure under that condition.
- A plaintiff’s unilateral or subjective expectation of compensation does not establish an implied-in-fact contract.
- Breach of confidence requires evidence of a confidential relationship or circumstances showing the recipient understood (or should have understood) the disclosure was made in confidence and not to be used or disclosed without authorization or compensation.
- The survival of a claim at the demurrer stage does not preclude summary judgment where discovery reveals insufficient evidence on essential elements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment because the evidence showed, at most, a preliminary, exploratory discussion of a program concept, not objective assent to pay for use of the idea or circumstances creating a legally cognizable duty of confidentiality.


Faris v. Enberg, 97 Cal. App. 3d 309 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)