Article Review: Introduction to Contracts
The article by Goldman Eric titled “Did Monster Energy Make a ‘Dope’ Contract with DJ Z-Trip Nope” was published in Forbes magazine on 5th November 2013 as a review of a case between Monster Energy and DJ Z-Trip and Beastie Boys. In the cases, Energy misinterpreted the meaning of the word “Dope” from DJ Z-Trip to mean that they could go ahead and publish Beastie Boys’ copyrighted material. In that respect, Energy relied on the misinterpreted word and assumed permission to use DJ Z-Trip’s “Megamix” remix in making a promotional YouTube video which then came as a surprise to the Beastie Boys whose song DJ Z-Trip had used to make the remix. The Beastie were aggrieved and sued Energy for infringing their copyright. In defense, Energy argued that they had the permission to use the song from DJ Z-Trip. Further, Energy cross-sued Z Trip for breaching the contract between them and making false implication that they could authorize the Beastie songs’ use. In their ruling, the judges determined that Z-trip was not liable because Energy had not made an offer and DJ Z-trip had not accepted any offer from them for a valid contract to have existed. In addition, DJ Z-trip was not liable for the damages that Energy owed Beastie Boys for copyright infringement. In conclusion, the use of the word Dope by DJ Z-trip in reply to Energy’s request to use the remix did not qualify as an acceptance to a contract offer that could have warranted creation of a valid contract. (Goldman, 2013)
Analysis
There are two cases that were determined and which depended on different aspects of contract law. The first case was the Beastie’s case against Energy claiming infringement of their copyright. In this case, Energy did not have any authority to use the Beastie songs because there was no contract between them allowing that and there had also been no contract between Beastie and DJ Z-Trip authorizing Z-Trip to enter into such contracts on their behalf. In that respect, there was no implied or express authority from Beastie for Energy to use their song hence being a case of copyright infringement where Energy was liable to pay damages. (Furmston & Chuah, 2013)
On the other side, the case between Energy and DJ Z-Trip was on basis of the requirements of a valid contract. A valid contract requires the contracting parties to have the capacity to enter into a contract in respect to the nature of the authorization required and fulfillment. In that respect, DJ Z-Trip did not have the authority to contract on behalf of Beastie boys hence a failure to meet that requirement. Further, there is a requirement that there must be an offer and acceptance of the same for a contract to be valid. (Furmston & Chuah, 2013) However, there had been no offer by Energy to DJ Z-Trip and no acceptance of the offer existed hence there had been no contract between the two. All the cases and failure to meet valid contracts requirements left Energy solely liable to Beastie boys and did not bid DJ Z-Trip for any liability. (Goldman, 2013)
Works cited
Furmston, Michael and Chuah, Jason. Commercial Law. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Publishers.
2013. Print.
Goldman, Eric. “Did Monster Energy Make a ‘Dope’ Contract with DJ Z-Trip Nope?”
Forbes 05 November 2013. Web 06 November 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/11/05/did-monster-energy-make-a-dope-contract-with-dj-z-trip-nope/
