On Friday, a judge in Los Angeles dismissed claims by a set of five siblings against ABC Television, which airs Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, based on the novel legal theory that a lawsuit over breach of contract should actually be based upon some provision of the contract. The show had built a new house for the couple that took the siblings in after their parents were killed; after the show aired, the siblings sued ABC and the couple, claiming that they were driven out of the house and the couple had taken donations meant for the siblings.
The judge ruled that ABC’s contract was with the couple, not the siblings. Other allegations in the suit, including fraud, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, remain; it’s not clear from coverage whether any of these involve ABC. (AP, Mar. 3; earlier details of the proceedings from the Whittier Daily News, Feb 22.)
MSNBC’s Dan Abrams interviewed the plaintiffs at the time the suit was filed; their lawyer was unable to give a coherent legal explanation as to why ABC should be liable: Transcript: Aug. 16, 2005. (Deep pockets, anyone?)
Previously covered on Overlawyered Aug 12, 2005.
4 Comments
A poignant example of the old saying,
“No good deed goes unpunished.”
I would make it a third party beneficiary story. Anyone who gives money to parents of a crippled kid, and then find out the parents took the money and blew it on a trip to Las Vegas usually flips out because they intended the money to be used for the kid’s welfare. In cases like that (it happens often enough) they have been known to demand their money back. Which is why we give the charitable trusts that are controlled by the parents but for whom the beneficiary is the crip in question. Keeps ’em honest.
Here the movie company exploited the kids to get press for their “good deed” episode, and obviously would not have given it to the grownups if they knew they were going to stiff the kids.
On the other hand,would the parents have let their original home be “extreme makeovered” if the orfinks were going to added as co-owners to the deed? I think not.
Good case, not at all one-sided. Make a good contracts/torts class question with a little more facts like detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel, etc.
Law dude: the kids may well be third party beneficiaries. But this lawsuit doesn’t fit the fact pattern of a third party beneficiary lawsuit. If ABC had failed to deliver the home to the couple, then the kids could make a claim against ABC under that theory. But here, the allegation is that the couple did something wrong after ABC performed.
Or was the house “delivered” to the wrong party?