HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, INC. v. GOLDWATER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A publisher rejected an author’s manuscript using a “satisfaction clause” but had refused to provide any editorial feedback. The court found the publisher breached an implied duty to edit in good faith and could not reject the manuscript or recover its advance payment.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a publisher’s right to reject a manuscript under a “satisfaction clause” is limited by an implied contractual duty to provide good-faith editorial assistance, giving the author a chance to cure defects.
HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, INC. v. GOLDWATER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. (HBJ), a publisher, contracted with authors Barry Goldwater and Stephen Shadegg to publish Goldwater’s memoirs. The contract contained a standard clause requiring the final manuscript to be “satisfactory to the publisher in form and content.” HBJ paid an initial advance of $65,000. Throughout the writing process, the authors submitted drafts and repeatedly requested editorial feedback from HBJ’s editor, Carol Hill. Hill, however, provided no specific comments or editorial guidance directly to the authors. Instead, she conveyed general, negative impressions to their literary agent and secretly explored replacing Shadegg with another writer. After the authors submitted the complete manuscript, HBJ formally rejected it as unsatisfactory and demanded the return of the $65,000 advance. The authors subsequently sold the same manuscript to another publisher, William Morrow & Company. After a normal collaborative editorial process, Morrow published the book, which became a bestseller.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a publisher breach its contract, thereby forfeiting its right to reject a manuscript as “unsatisfactory,” when it fails to provide any good-faith editorial guidance to the author?
Yes. The court held that HBJ breached its contract by willfully failing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a publisher breach its contract, thereby forfeiting its right to reject a manuscript as “unsatisfactory,” when it fails to provide any good-faith editorial guidance to the author?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle that a satisfaction clause in a publishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercit
Legal Rule
In a publishing contract with a "satisfaction clause," there is an implied Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that a publisher's discretion under a satisfaction clause is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occae
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A “satisfactory to the publisher” clause in a publishing contract is