from Mr Mark Le Fanu
Sir, I have much sympathy for Andrew Malcolm (11th May) and the principal for which he is fighting: that publishers should be bound by promises of publication even if a contract has not been signed.
All too often authors undertake substantial revisions of manuscripts having been told or given the clear impression that publication will certainly follow. When it doesn't, the author - not surprisingly - feels aggrieved and angry. In Mr Malcolm's case, the judge was satisfied that the OUP gave a clear commitment that the book would be published but decided that the commitment did not amount to a contractual obligation.
As the action is subject to appeal and depends to some extent on all the facts involved, it is probably not appropriate to comment in detail. However, I think that Mr Malcolm is stretching a point - and perhaps alarming authors unnecessarily - when he says that very few author/publisher contracts may be enforceable.
The judge indicated some of the matters to be agreed - in the absence of a formal contract - before it could be established that contractual obligations existed. He wrongly gave the print run (which is not often mentioned in publishing contracts) as an example. It does not follow that publishing contracts which have been agreed and signed may be unenforceable if no print run is specified.
The legal position of authors undertaking work without a formal contract is a worrying and complex subject which we will be considering in the Author. What is not in doubt is that, according to the judge, Mr Malcolm was "harshly and unfairly treated".
Yours faithfully,
Mark Le Fanu
General Secretary
The Society of Authors,
84 Drayton Gardens,
London SW10
Go to the next item in the Malcolm v. Oxford saga.