Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. v. Goldwater Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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 was found to have breached the contract. The court held the publisher’s failure to provide any editorial feedback violated its implied duty of good faith, making the rejection wrongful.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a publisher’s right to reject a manuscript under a “satisfaction clause” is limited by an implied duty of good faith, which requires providing the author with editorial feedback and a reasonable opportunity to cure defects before rejection.
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 Senator Barry Goldwater and writer Stephen Shadegg for Goldwater’s memoirs. The contract contained a standard clause requiring the manuscript to be “satisfactory to the publisher in form and content” and provided for a $200,000 advance, of which $65,000 was paid upon signing. Despite the authors’ repeated requests for editorial guidance on submitted drafts, HBJ’s editor, Carol Hill, provided no substantive feedback. Instead, she gave only general, negative comments to the authors’ agent while secretly exploring the possibility of replacing Shadegg with another writer. After the authors submitted the complete manuscript, HBJ formally rejected it as unacceptable without ever providing specific editorial comments or suggestions for revision. HBJ then demanded the return of the $65,000 advance. Subsequently, the authors sold the same manuscript to another publisher, William Morrow & Company. After receiving standard editorial assistance from Morrow, the book, titled “With No Apologies,” was published and became a bestseller.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the publisher breach the publishing agreement by rejecting the manuscript as “unsatisfactory” when it had failed to provide any editorial assistance to the authors, thereby violating its implied duty of good faith?
Yes. The court held that HBJ breached its contract with the authors. 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the publisher breach the publishing agreement by rejecting the manuscript as “unsatisfactory” when it had failed to provide any editorial assistance to the authors, thereby violating its implied duty of good faith?
Conclusion
This decision is a foundational case in publishing law, affirming that the 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
A publisher's contractual right to reject a manuscript as not "satisfactory to 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 veli
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that while a "satisfaction clause" grants a publisher considerable 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 occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A publisher’s contractual right to reject a manuscript as “unsatisfactory” is