## Facts

- In 1969, a filmmaker agreed to write, direct, and produce a motion picture about lithography for a nonprofit workshop; the film was completed and shown in 1970.
- The parties later litigated disputes arising from the 1969 agreement and settled before judgment.
- Under a 1973 settlement agreement, the filmmaker was entitled to the on-screen credit “A Film by Terry Sanders.”
- The workshop distributed prints without the promised credit.
- The workshop and its president sued for declaratory relief and related tort and contract claims; the filmmaker cross-complained for breach of contract, declaratory relief, specific performance of the credit provision, and defamation.
- A jury found the workshop breached the 1973 agreement and awarded the filmmaker $25,000 in damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on the damages verdict but denied specific performance requiring the workshop to provide the credit going forward.
- The filmmaker appealed the denial of specific performance.

## Issues

1. Whether money damages were an adequate remedy for breach of a contractual promise to provide film screen credit, or whether specific performance should be ordered.
2. Whether an award of damages for past breach bars specific performance compelling future compliance with the credit obligation.
3. Whether the jury’s damages award compensated only past harm or also extinguished any future entitlement to the agreed credit.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the $25,000 damages award for the workshop’s past breach of the credit agreement.
- The court reversed the denial of specific performance.
- The court held that damages were not an adequate remedy for the continuing denial of the agreed screen credit.
- The court directed the trial court on remand to enter an order requiring the workshop to provide the credit “A Film by Terry Sanders” in future distributions and exhibitions of the film.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance is appropriate when a legal remedy is inadequate, including when the breached obligation concerns professional or reputational credit whose value and future effects are difficult to measure in money.
- A party may receive damages for past breaches and also obtain specific performance to compel future compliance with an ongoing contractual duty.
- A jury’s award for damages “suffered” may be construed as compensation for injuries incurred up to trial and does not necessarily operate as a buyout of continuing contractual performance rights.

## Conclusion

The court held that the contractual right to an on-screen film credit warranted equitable enforcement because damages could not adequately compensate for ongoing and hard-to-quantify reputational harm; it therefore permitted both damages for past breach and specific performance requiring future compliance.


Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Inc. v. Sanders, 143 Cal. App. 3d 571 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)