Case Study: Brodel Vs. Warner Brothers

Warner Bros vs Brodel:

The California Legislature, in 1927, enacted section 36 of California Civil Code. The section read as follows: “A minor cannot disaffirm a contract, otherwise valid, to perform or render services as actor, actress, or other dramatic services, as participant or player in professional sports, including, but without being limited to, professional boxers, professional wrestlers and professional jockeys, where such contract has been approved by the superior court of the county where such minor resides or is employed. Such approval may be given on the petition of either party to the contract after such reasonable notice to the other party thereto, as may be fixed by said court, with opportunity to such other party to appear and be heard.”
A quarter century into its institution, the validity and application of the statute were tested in Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Brodel.

The agreement stated that Miss Brodel ought to execute as a movie onscreen character for one year and that Warner Brothers ought to have six progressive options, exercisable over a six-year period, allowing the employer towards the end of every year to extend the season of job for an extra time of 52 weeks. On February 20, 1946, inside a month of attaining her majority, Miss Brodel tried to disaffirm the agreement. In a subsequent suit that followed the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of the contract and the option to extend and Miss Brodel was not allowed to disaffirm the