Leuthold v CBC: ‘industry practice’ in interpreting contracts
By Bob Tarantino
When, if ever, can ‘industry practice’ be used in interpreting contracts? That question is of particular relevance in the entertainment industries, as each facet of those industries (such as film, TV, music, book publishing and videogames) has its own jargon, standards and conventions, some of which are, if not contradictory, at least not obviously compatible (as an example, the term ‘publishing’ has very different connotations as between the ‘worlds’ of music, book publishing and film). If the parties to a contract come to the contract from different ‘worlds’, and they have different understandings of what a term in a contract means, whose understanding should prevail?
A couple of years ago, in a post entitled Leuthold v CBC: damages for copyright infringement, I noted the Federal Court decision in Leuthold v CBC (2012 FC 748). As the title of that post indicated, the post focused on how the court in that case calculated the damages payable for copyright infringement when the CBC made unauthorised use of photographs in a documentary. I wrote at the time that the ‘decision goes into great detail about the various negotiations and conflicting understandings of the parties — potentially interesting in their own right but of limited application beyond the bounds of these particular disputants’. I think I got that wrong, and I’d like to revisit the case now with particular reference to the issue of industry standards. A couple of weeks ago, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in the appeal of the matter (2014 FCA 173) (spoiler alert: the CBC won again), and in reading the decision of the appeals court I was struck by the fact that a portion of the decision seems to turn in large part on how to handle ‘industry practice’ when interpreting contracts…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Dentons briefing.
News from Dentons
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Dentons
Industry Canada has published a Q&A on the next steps for those entities that have not yet continued under the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act.
Heads we win, tails you lose (the difficulties of litigating against an adversary who will still owe you money if they win)
The recent judgment of Teare J marks the latest staging post in the advance of these claims towards trial.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The continent’s boom in natural resources and renewable energy is sparking an infrastructure drive