Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Shields v. Gross | 58 N.Y.2d 338, 461 N.Y.S.2d 254, 448 N.E.2d 108 (1983)
Generally, a minor, who is someone younger than the legal age of majority, doesn’t have the capacity to contract, except for necessaries. Instead, contracts with minors are deemed voidable at the minor’s election after attaining the age of majority, which allows the minor to affirm or disaffirm the contract. But what if a state statute gives the minor the right to enter into certain contracts through a legal guardian’s consent? May the minor later disaffirm the consent given? The New York Court of Appeals considered this question in Shields versus Gross.
In 1975, at 10 years old, actress Brooke Shields was a child model. Through her agent, Shields obtained several modeling jobs with Gary Gross, a fashion photographer. One of the jobs required Shields to pose nude in a bathtub for a series of photographs taken by Gross.
Prior to posing for the photographs, Shield’s mother executed two consent agreements in favor of Gross. The consent agreements were required under New York statute to allow Gross to use the photographs for advertising or trade. Further, the statute provided that a minor’s guardian could provide consent on behalf of the minor for use of the minor’s photographs.
The photographs were then used in various publications, including Sugar and Spice magazine, which was published by Playboy. But in 1980, Shields became upset when she learned that the photographs were used in a French magazine named Photo.
Subsequently, Shields sued Gross in state supreme court based in tort and contract law, seeking an injunction to prevent Gross from further using the photographs, as well as damages. The court granted Shields a preliminary injunction, and the case went to trial. Following trial, the court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the consents given by Shields’ parent were unrestricted. However, the court granted Shields a permanent injunction based on Gross’s agreement not to use the photographs in pornographic magazines or publications predominantly prurient in nature.
Shields appealed to the appellate division, which modified the judgment and granted Shields a permanent injunction that prevented Gross from using the pictures for advertising or trade. Specifically, the majority found that Shields had a common law right to disaffirm the consent given by her parent. Shields and Gross cross appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 36,700 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Shields v. Gross Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Теги
Shields v. Grossbriefsquimbeelaw casecase brief examplebrief casecase briefpress briefcase summarieslegal briefhow to brief a casecase brief templatelegal brief casehow to write a case brieflegal brief examplesample case briefcase brief formatexample of a brieflaw briefslegal brief definitionwhat is a brief in lawwhat is a case briefcourt briefbrief definition lawlegal brief templatefacts of the casecase summary example