ertising, for the sale of advertising space on NITE's members' movie screens. The contract provided that at least fifty percent of the net revenues Cinemavision collected from its advertisers for the participating theatres would ['.5] be paid directly to the Film Fund. The contract required NITE to use its

part argument. First, the distributors ("13] noted that SAFFCO failed to obtain contributions from exhibitor on-screen advertising revenues because Cinemavision collapsed and that Cinemavision collapsed because it could not persuade anyone to advertise on its network of theatre screens. Second, they pointed

ies, numerous theatre exhibitors withdrew from the NITE program; they could not afford to lose their principal sources of supply. At the same time, Cinemavision tried to separate itself from SAFFCO and NITE in order to save its business. These efforts came too late, and in 1978 Cinemavision went out of busi

ertising, for the sale of advertising space on NITE's members' movie screens. The contract provided that at least fifty percent of the net revenues Cinemavision collected from its advertisers for the participating theatres would ["5] be paid directly to the Film Fund. The contract required NITE to use its b