From Mr Mark Le Fanu
Sir, I doubt that you will welcome much more correspondence until the appeal has been heard, but may I reply briefly to Mr Andrew Malcolm (8th June)?
The central issue of his action against OUP is whether or not - in the absence of a formal written agreement - enough had been agreed to constitute a contract. I do not think that the judgment contains many implications for authors who have entered into publishing contracts.
In response to Mr Malcolm's question, I have not heard of any recent example of a publisher being ordered to publish a commissioned book. The cancellation of a contract is distressing, frustrating and disruptive for an author. My impression is that judges are unlikely to order publication because by that stage the author/publisher relationship has broken down and publication by a reluctant publisher may be thought not to be in the author's interest. However, that does not mean that publishers are free to break contracts with impunity. The author will usually have a claim for the balance of the advance, and probably more. One difficulty is that the author may not be able to afford to instruct solicitors to start litigation. We are happy to assist any member and to do what we can to achieve an acceptable settlement, using solicitors if necessary.
Finally, Sir Roger Elliott takes me to task (1st June) for commenting on Mr Malcolm's action "without being aware of any of the background". I was in court for the judgment and it was the judge - not I - who said that Mr Malcolm had been "harshly and unfairly treated".
Yours faithfully,
M Le Fanu
General Secretary,
Society of Authors,
84 Drayton Gardens, London SW10
Go to the next item in the Malcolm v. Oxford saga.