2017 ORS 646A.085¹
Sale of rights by distributor to exhibit motion picture without first giving exhibitor opportunity to view motion picture prohibited
  • attorney fees

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Distributor” means any person engaged in the business of distributing or supplying motion pictures to exhibitors by rental, sales, license or any other agreement to sell rights to exhibit a motion picture.

(b) “Exhibitor” means any person engaged in the business of operating one or more theaters in which motion pictures are exhibited to the public for a charge.

(c) “Market” means any geographical area in this state for which a distributor solicits exhibitors to compete, by bidding or other negotiations, for the rights to exhibit a motion picture.

(2) No distributor shall sell rights to exhibit a motion picture in this state unless each exhibitor solicited by the distributor for an offer to exhibit the motion picture is first allowed a reasonable opportunity to view the motion picture within the state. Any waiver of this subsection is void and unenforceable.

(3) Nothing in this section applies to any form of solicitation of offers for, negotiation concerning or sale of rights to exhibit a motion picture:

(a) That has been exhibited in this state before October 3, 1979.

(b) In a market where the motion picture has been exhibited for one week or more.

(c) That is 60 minutes or less in length.

(4) An exhibitor may enforce this section by bringing an action in the appropriate court of this state. In enforcing this section a court may:

(a) Issue an injunction to prohibit violation of this section; and

(b) Award an exhibitor any actual damages arising from violation of this section.

(5) In any suit under subsection (4) of this section, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal to the prevailing party. [Formerly 646.868]

Law Review Cita­tions

52 WLR 451 (2016)

(formerly 646.315 to 646.375)

Notes of Decisions

Where purchaser fails to provide notice of condi­tion requiring repair, presump­tion does not arise that repair time exceeding 30 business days demonstrates inability of manufacturer to conform vehicle. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Repair time exceeding 30 business days as evidence of inability to conform vehicle applies only to presently existing defect. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 329 (1983)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646A—Trade Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 646A, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.