Original Batmobile Exhibition Agreement

October 12, 1966

William Dozier

Charles B. FitzSimons

 

BATMOBILE EXHIBITION

AGREEMENTS - SYNOPSIS

 

TWO AGREEMENTS

1)      EXHIBITION AGREEMENTS - National Periodicals; Barris Kustom City ; Fox and Greenway

2)      SIDE AGREEMENT - Barris Kustom City ; Fox and Greenway

In the Exhibition Agreement, Barris is given the right to exhibit duplicates of the Batmobile, and in the Side Agreement, Fox and Greenway acquire the right to continued use of the existing model free of rent and completely refurbished mechanically and bodily and subsequently maintained at Barris’ sole expense.

In the exhibition agreement, National Periodicals get 12 ½% of the first $50,000 of exhibition income on each of two cars and 25% thereafter and Fox and Greenway share in this royalty on the same basis as they do in merchandising income.

Additional duplicate cars can only be built with Fox and Greenway’s consent and the duplicate models can only be exhibited for so long as Fox and Greenway continue to use the existing design in production.

In this side agreement, Fox and Greenway waive the right to recoup from merchandising income accruing from this specific design of the Batmobile, the cost of the first car and rental in excess of $10,000 before any participation by Barris.  It is questionable, however as to whether Barris would be entitled to any a share of merchandising income in the firs place, as the original Batmobile Agreement was deliberately worded to make Barris’ participation conditional on Fox and Greenway acquiring and handing merchandising rights, which, of course, they never have.  However, even if he were to be adjudged entitled to share in merchandising income accruing from National Periodicals owning and handling merchandising rights, the amount waived is small by comparison to the saving on rent and the elimination of the “headaches” of the past year, - with the offset, also, of whatever new income share Fox and Greenway get from exhibition royalty.

In the side agreement the waiver was deliberately not made part of the consideration, so that in the event of Fox and Greenway subsequently denying Barris’ right to any merchandising share, he could not in return claim the consideration was void.  The consideration for the side agreement is specified as Fox and Greenway’s consent to his building two duplicates for exhibition.

In this side agreement it is specifically set out that in the event of any further disputes, Barris is limited to any right he may have in damages but Fox an Greenway retain the continuous uninterrupted possession of the car, - and he can only pick it up by signing a document containing a guaranteed redelivery date.

Charles B. FitzSimons

CBF/jam