Sir in Page One Records v Britton (Trading as The Troggs) (1967) as manager (claimant) cannot get an injunction against Troggs (defendant) because troggs cannot get an order of specific performance from manager. Like wise, why in Warner Brothers Pictures Inc v Nelson (1936), claimant can get an injunction against film star bette, when bette cannot get order of specific performance against claimant?
You can’t get an injunction that insists that you have to employ someone or not carry on in business
The Warner Bros case merely stopped Bette Davis from working for a different film company. It didn’t stop her working
OK?
Author
Posts
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
The topic ‘KIT QUESTION’ is closed to new replies.
Cookies
We serve cookies. If you think that's ok, just click "Accept all". You can also choose what kind of cookies you want by clicking "Settings". Read our cookie policy