User:ShaunthePost/sandbox

Andrew Malcolm, born 10 October 1948, is a British author, who pursued seven-year breach-of-contract claim against Oxford University Press, which he won with a landmark legal judgement in the Court of Appeal in 1991. Reporting on the verdict, Laurence Marks in the Observer wrote, 'It is the first time in living memory that Grub Street has won such a victory over its oppressors.'.

The case ended in July 1992 with a Tomlin order, a unique damages settlement under the terms of which the servants and agents of Oxford University are for all time barred from denigrating Malcolm or his work. Malcolm's book, Making Names, is the first work in literary history to be afforded such legal protection.

Making Names
Malcolm's book is a philosophical dialogue 'in which two strangers meet one summer’s morning in a near-miss car accident: Andrew Cause is a philosopher, Malcolm Effect a research scientist. In their ensuing day-long conversation, Cause subjects Effect to a sustained sceptical attack upon the inadequacies and inconsistencies of his world-view. Traditional problems are introduced, including those of mind and body, cause and effect, free will, universals and the nature of moral goodness. Cause identifies the scientist’s particle theory of matter as a crucially mistaken and hopeless metaphysics which has now outlived any usefulness. Step by step, Effect is reduced to a state of confusion, and finally he demands that Cause produce an alternative. In a literally dramatic climax the philosopher invokes a new model which, he claims, gets to the heart of things...''

In 1984, Malcolm's book was accepted for publication, subject to certain revisions, by the OUP general books editor, Henry Hardy, who later described it as 'an engaging and original introduction to philosophy in dialogue form'. In correspondence with Hardy, Malcolm stated that he would only do further work if he received Oxford’s firm commitment to the book’s publication. Hardy gave him this commitment in a telephone call, which Malcolm recorded. In a subsequent letters, Hardy wrote,'I'm pleased that we are going to do your book, and hope that it's a terrific success.'.

In Hardy's own account, Malcolm's book then 'fell victim to an internal disagreement at Oxford University Press' when Hardy's managing director, Richard Charkin, overruled his favourable view of the book, and transferred him to another department of OUP. When Malcolm returned six months later with the book revised as agreed, he found that it was instead to be handled by a junior editor Nicola Bion, who turned it down.

Malcolm vs Oxford University
Following the rejection, Malcolm went to law, issuing a writ for breach of contract against the university on December 23, 1986. The case depended on whether the conversations and letters between Hardy and Malcolm constituted a contract. In 1990, Lord Justice Leggatt concluded that when Hardy talked in recorded phone conversations about 'some form of contract' he was making a contractual agreement: 'In my judgment, when Mr Hardy used the expressions 'commitment' and 'a fair royalty', he did in fact mean what he said.'. Malcolm was awarded costs.

Mark Le Fanu, general secretary of the Society of Authors, said after the judgment: 'We congratulate Mr Malcolm for persevering and winning the action. It's very significant that the Court of Appeal has confirmed that oral promises made by publishers can be binding even before a formal contract has been completed. I think that what will now happen is that publishers will make it clear that deals are subject to contract. But this will be better than ambiguity. At least an author will know where he or she stands.'

Giles Gordon, the literary agent, declared, 'I think it's a most remarkable victory for authors. It means that editors' verbal assurances may be legally binding.'.