- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
MikeLittle.
MikeLittle.-
Posts
-
Eunice03
- Topics: 43
- Replies: 38
- ☆☆
Page One Records v Britton (Trading as The Troggs) (1967)
Facts: The claimants, as managers of a pop group (The Troggs), sought an
injunction to restrain the group from breaching their contract by
engaging another manager.
Held: As the group would have been unable to obtain an order of specific
performance to compel the claimants to perform their personal services
as managers, the claimants could not obtain an injunction against the
defendants, as there was no mutuality between the parties.Good day sir,Pls i don’t understand what they mean by the claimants not being able to obtain an injunction because there was no mutuality between parties.I will appreciate if you can shed more light on this
MikeLittle
- Topics: 26
- Replies: 22588
- ☆☆☆☆☆
Specific performance (Do it) and injunction (Stop it) are effectively opposites in equity law
The Court’s decision here says that the Troggs would not be able to get an order of specific performance requiring Page One Records to perform their duties as managers of the group.
It would therefore be unfair if Page One Records were to be able to get an injunction to prevent the Troggs from finding a new manager
And that’s where the concept of mutuality comes in. Why should one party have special rights whilst the other doesn’t have equivalent rights?
Does that explain it for you?
Eunice03
- Topics: 43
- Replies: 38
- ☆☆
Yes sir.Thank you
MikeLittle
- Topics: 26
- Replies: 22588
- ☆☆☆☆☆
You’re welcome
Eunice03
MikeLittle- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.