Warner Bros v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209
Judgement for the case Warner Bros v Nelson
Table Of Contents
Bette Davis (Defendant), a well known film actor, contracted for one year to render her exclusive services to Plaintiff.
The contract contained a clause prohibiting Defendant from rendering her acting services to any other company. However before the year expired Defendant did perform for another company.
Plaintiff sought an injunction preventing Defendant from performing elsewhere.
-
The court held that while the general rule is that an injunction is not ordered when its effect is to enforce a contract for personal services, in this case Defendant could do work other then acting and was not thereby compelled to work for Plaintiff, i.e. this would not be regarded as indirect specific performance.
Also, damages were not an appropriate remedy.
Dodgy: is she really free to quit her profession and take up something else? CW thinks not and that in reality this amounted to an order of specific performance.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Warner Bros v Nelson
A collection of the best BPTC notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Property and Chancery | Equitable Remedies Notes (24 pages) |
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.