In 1997 the Private Movie Company in the person of its producer Ben Efraim sued at law claiming that Pamela Lee (best known for her starring in "Baywatch") has breeched the written and oral contract. At the last minute she turned down a deal to star in a movie ”Hello, She Lied” and caused the Company to suffer losses.

On May 27, 1997, Judge Horowitz resolved the case in favor of the defendant, Pamela Lee (1, 2005). However, from my point of view as a plaintiff it seems doubtful whether the court decision was right.We have already informed the court that Ms. Anderson (at that time Mrs.

Lee already) had agency agreement and through her agent she took an offer to star in the movie for 200,000 US dollars. We have sent her several drafts of the contract until at last we reached mutual consent on all delicate issues (i. e. sex and nude scenes) and had oral agreement with Mr. Lee’s signature being a mere formality.

I can prove that everything I have said is plain truth by evidence in the form of a copy of the agreement with all changes made by Ms. Lee’s request that was forwarded to her and her lawyer on December 21, 1994 (2, 2005). Yet the defendant argues that she has never agreed to star in the movie and no either oral or written agreement was ever reached and dares to claim that we always rejected her requests for script modification and with regard to nude and sex scenes though it is very far from being true.Thus, Ms.

Lee’s attorneys represented me in a very unfavorable light as a villainous liar who tried to deceive Ms. Lee. Whereas, the latter has obviously breached the written contract (though it was not signed but I am sure it could be considered as finalized with a precedent of California case, Stephan v. Maloof (1969) according to which "parties may engage in preliminary negotiations, oral or written, in order to reach an agreement ..

. these negotiations ordinarily result in a binding contract when all of the terms are definitely understood, even though the parties intend that a formal writing embodying these terms shall be executed later" (2, 2005).Furthermore, she has breached an oral contract as in accordance with Hollywood rules, "when the parties orally agree upon all the terms and conditions of an agreement with the mutual intention that it shall thereupon become binding, the mere fact that a formal written agreement to the same effect is to be prepared and signed does not alter the binding validity of the oral agreement" (Schwartz v. Shapiro) (2, 2005).And the last but not the least Ms.

 Lee acted against the doctrine of promissory estoppel that “prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has relied on that promise and acted upon it the least the given case” (3, 2005). I suffered losses because my film was designed specially for Ms. Lee and I counted on her. That is why her sudden last-minute backup was a disloyalty and I cannot understand why the judge has favored her.

In a word, it is difficult for me to perceive the judge’s resolution. Despite all evidence being against the defendant and the fact that she has breached the law three times (breach of written and oral contract and promissory estoppel) she was found right while I was maligned and in addition to my company suffer losses my good name and reputation were blackened. One may only wonder whether that was due to Ms. Lee fame or owning to her experienced and eloquent attorneys.