Warner Bros Pictures Inc v Nelson
An injunction can enforce a negative promise in a personal services contract, if it does not in effect compel the person to perform.
Facts
Bette Davis, the film actress, whose married name was Nelson, agreed with Warner Brothers to act exclusively for the studio for a period, and promised not to act for any other film company or to engage in any other occupation without the studio's consent. During the contract, she came to England and agreed to make films for another company. Warner Brothers sought an injunction to restrain her from acting for anyone else.
Legal principle
Branson J granted an injunction restraining Miss Davis from acting in films or plays for anyone other than Warner Brothers in England, for the remainder of the contract or three years, whichever was shorter. The court will not order specific performance of a contract for personal services, and will not grant an injunction that in effect compels performance by leaving the person with no other way to earn a living. Here, the injunction was limited to acting work in England, so Miss Davis could still earn a living in other ways, even if less profitably, and was not compelled to work for Warner Brothers. The court refused to enforce her wider promise not to engage in any other occupation.
Related cases on remedies
- Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488
- Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 QB 60
- Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268
- British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673
- Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, [2016] AC 1172
- Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79
- Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49, [2002] 2 AC 732
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
