Society of Academic Authors: Authoring Case Law: 1975
FOR PEOPLE WHOSE SCHOLARSHIP AND LEARNING MATERIALS ADVANCE HUMAN KNOWLEDGE
SOCIETY OF ACADEMIC AUTHORS
HOME

NEWS
Latest items
Archive

MEMBERSHIP
Joining sa2


U.S. AUTHORING CASE LAW: 1975

These are cases that bear on authoring.

This compilation, a work in progress, is far from complete.

If you are aware of case that should be included, please let us know: Editor

CONTACTS

MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY

EDITOR



Safire v. Morrow (1975)
Main issue: Satisfactory manuscript

William Safire, a speech writer for President Nixon, and William Morrow & Co., a publishing house, entered a contract in March 1973 for a book on Nixon's first term. Morrow paid Safire an $83,000 advance against royalties with another $162,000 promised when the manuscript was submitted. Eight months later, in November, Safire delivered his manuscript as scheduled. Morrow asserted that the manuscript was unsatisfactory because the Watergate scandal had diminished the market for "a positive book" on Nixon's first four years. Morrow declined to pay the remainder of the $250,000 advance. Safire responded that he had met the terms of the contract. Morrow countered that Safire had refused to makes changes requested by his Morrow editor and demanded that he return the first installment of the advance. The issue hinged on the "satisfactory manuscript" provision that is standard in publishing contracts. Meanwhile, Safire found another publisher, Doubleday, to be interested in his manuscript, and he took a $10,000 advance. Safire then argued that Doubleday's acceptance demonstrated that the manuscript demonstrated that it was satisfactory and that Morrow should have honored the agreement for the full $250,000 advance. To settle the issue, Safire and Morrow agreed to arbitration. The arbitrator concluded that Safire could keep the initial $83,000 advance but upheld Morrow's position on the broader issue. The arbitrator said that only a publisher can determine whether a manuscript is satisfactory. That determination, the ruling said, cannot be delegated to editors at a second publishing house or to arbitrators. Authors objected to the ruling. In effect, authors said, the decision rendered a contract nothing more than an option to buy a manuscript. All in all, Safire v. Morrow was a triumph for publishers and their "satisfactory manuscript" interpretation, and a setback for authors.


NEXT CASE
TO TOP
DETAIL

American Arbitration Case No. 1310-1230-73 (1975).

Daisy Maryles. "Morrow vs. Safire: The Author Keeps His Money But Loses the Issue," Publishers Weekly, Volume 207 (January 20, 1975), Page 21.

NEXT CASE
TO TOP
OTHER YEARS