Bette Davis (D), a well known film actor, contracted for one year to render her exclusive services to P. The contract contained a clause prohibiting D from rendering her acting services to any other company. However before the year expired D did perform for another company. P sought an injunction preventing D 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 D could do work other then acting and was not thereby compelled to work for P 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.