Marvin Farkas T/a Farkas Studio v Om Shoppe Ltd

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ2134/1971
Judgment Date:01 Nov 1971





ACTION NO. 2134 OF 1971


Marvin Farkas trading as Farkas Studio Plaintiff
Om Shoppe Ltd. Defendants


Coram: D. Cons, D.J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 1 November 1971




1. In March of last year a contract was entered into between the plaintiff, who operates a photographic business, and the defendant company, a shop selling at that time both ladies' and gentlemen's clothing. It now deals only in the latter.

2. The contract was confirmed in a letter by the plaintiff of the 17th of that month (Exhibit 1). It provided basically for the making of a 30-second colour advertising film, the Defendant to provide the sound track. The cost was to be $4,500.00, a price which included no profit for the plaintiff by reason of his long standing friendship with Mr. Moni Narain, a director of the defendant company. The length of time necessary to complete the film was expressed as four to six weeks from the commencement of shooting.

3. The shooting was delayed for reasons not really the fault of either party, but even allowing for this the plaintiff did not complete his work within six weeks and it was not until nearly the middle of June that the film was actually delivered. Before this Mr. Narain, his wife, who was at that time still his fiancee, and a person to whom he has referred as his "partner" had on one or two occasions seen what I would call "rough proofs" of the film. In general they appeared to have been pleased with it except for one sequence, a sequence that occurred at the very end and consisted of a small boy poking out his tongue. Mr. Narain and his wife said that they suggested to Mr. Moyer, the plaintiff's assistant, that this sequence be removed and replaced by a simple presentation of the actual name of Mr. Narain's shop. I should perhaps here interpose that the whole of the film had been designed and produced by Mr. Moyer, who is acknowledged by all concerned to be a brilliant and creative artist. Like many such he was not at first disposed to accept criticism, but finally and reluctantly agreed to accept the changes suggested.

4. The plaintiff's version of this matter is somewhat different. He was not present at all the times that Mr. Narain and the others saw the proofs, but he did see them once himself and of his own accord suggested that the film would be improved by the addition of some form of titling, only to be met with the retort from his assistant that this matter had been discussed and that they had already decided otherwise. The plaintiff says that Mr. Narain and his wife were present at the time that he made his comments, although neither of these can now remember that.

5. It is unfortunate for the plaintiff that Mr. Moyer is no longer in the Colony to be called as a witness...

To continue reading

Request your trial