1.

If I am representing Hollywood Production Studios, I would invoke as a defense the

failure of Jumer to comply with the condition that the partnership should first be
successful so the parties could begin filming a sequel. To support my claim, I would
argue that a successful partnership is more than just having a film which has exceeded
box office predictions. Successful partnership encompasses the certainty that both parties
can work well with each other and possess deep understanding of human emotions and
their subsequent behavioral outcomes.

In the given case, it is apparent that both parties failed to establish a successful
partnership because of Jumer’s attitude. Jumer has displayed indifferences by arguing
with the director. She has failed to appear during filming days which reflect her
personality as a disrespectful individual. Jumer had failed to understand the nature of the
field that she entered into. As a result, both parties’ values do not align and the outcome
will surely be detrimental. Hence, Hollywood Production Studios has the right to decline
Jumer’s offer of filming a sequel because there was no successful partnership to speak of.

2. If I will be representing Jumer, I would argue as a defense that the contract entered into
by my client and the opposing party is a binding law between them. Their contractual ties
gave rise to obligations on the part of the contracting parties. These obligations arising
from contracts have the force of law between the parties and each party is bound to
comply with it. Unless this stipulation in the contract is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy, the same is binding between the parties.

In the given case, the terms and condition expressed in the contract regarding the sequel
is a source of right on the part of my client to demand performance of the obligation from
the other party. The clause is also not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
or public policy, the same is binding between the parties. Since the first film became
successful such that it is considered a reflection of a successful partnership, a second
sequel must take place.
3. If I am going to weigh which argument is more persuasive, I will go for the Hollywood
Production Studios’ defense.

In order to determine how the term in the contract may be applied correctly, it is
important to first determine what the subject clause means. We must begin looking at the
plain language and the usual and ordinary meaning of the clause to discover its original
intent. In the given case, since the term “successful partnership” is unclear as it welcomes
different interpretations, we will now attempt to ascertain the intent of the parties in
drafting the said clause.

A successful partnership requires you to choose the right person to partner with and
invest into the partnership. There must also be a mutual respect, shared vison and an
irrefutable trust within it. Apparently, the purpose of the parties in including the clause
was to ensure that each of them has practiced and developed partnering skills that can
promote a higher partnership success.

In the given case, Hollywood Production Studios is a production company that aims to
take opportunities that can help it expand and grow. Establishing a successful partnership
surely increases the odds of its success because a successful partnership bears with it
successful results. From this, we can conclude that this clause has a win-win intention.
The production studios can fulfill its own objective the same way Jumer can achieve his
artistic success.