## Facts

- Harry Yadkoe authored comedy “literary material,” including a “snake story” and related gags, suitable for motion pictures and radio.
- Yadkoe submitted the material to W. C. Fields for use in Fields’s entertainment work with the understanding that Fields would pay the reasonable value if he used it.
- Fields acknowledged receiving Yadkoe’s material in correspondence and encouraged additional submissions, including language suggesting a paid arrangement (e.g., referencing a “contract”).
- Yadkoe alleged Fields used and embodied the submitted material in the film *You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man* and in radio broadcasts featuring Fields.
- Yadkoe alleged he had not transferred the material to others and had not granted permission for its uncompensated use.
- Yadkoe sued on two counts seeking compensation: (1) recovery of the reasonable value of the material under an implied agreement; and (2) use and appropriation without compensation.
- A jury returned a verdict for Yadkoe and awarded $8,000; the trial court denied Fields’s motion for nonsuit.
- Fields appealed, arguing the material was not compensable (ideas/common stock), use was not sufficiently proved, and the trial involved instructional/evidentiary error and excessive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding of an implied-in-fact contract requiring Fields to pay the reasonable value of comedy material submitted for paid use.
2. Whether the submitted comedy material was sufficiently definite and original for recovery under a submission-and-use contract theory, as opposed to being merely unprotectable ideas or stock material.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Fields actually used material originating with Yadkoe.
4. Whether denial of nonsuit, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or the damages award required reversal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Yadkoe.
- Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of an implied-in-fact contract based on the submission circumstances, correspondence, and subsequent use.
- The court rejected Fields’s contention that the material was categorically noncompensable; it was sufficiently concrete to support recovery when submitted for paid use and used by the recipient.
- Conflicts in the evidence about the extent of use were for the jury; the record supported the inference that Fields used Yadkoe’s material.
- The $8,000 award was within the evidentiary range for reasonable value and was not excessive as a matter of law.
- No reversible instructional or evidentiary error was shown.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract may be proved by the parties’ conduct and surrounding circumstances, including acceptance of a submission offered for paid use and later use of that submission.
- In a submission case, liability may rest on contract principles rather than copyright, where the recipient uses submitted material under circumstances showing an understanding that compensation is expected.
- For contract-based recovery, the submitted material must be sufficiently definite and concrete to be the subject of a compensated use, even if it contains elements that might be common in the genre.
- On appeal, the presence of substantial evidence supporting the verdict requires affirmance, and conflicts in testimony and competing inferences are resolved in favor of the judgment.
- Reasonable value of entertainment material and whether a damages award is excessive are primarily factual determinations for the jury, upheld if supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict awarding compensation to a writer whose comedy material was submitted for paid use and later used by an entertainer, holding that the correspondence, course of dealing, and evidence of use supported an implied-in-fact contract to pay reasonable value and that no reversible trial error occurred.


Yadkoe v. Fields, 66 Cal. App. 2d 150, 151 P.2d 906 (Ct. App. 1944)