The second contract is the written contract which was conducted at the time the husband bought the item was broken. It was stated in the contract the delivery date, but the company failed to do what they promised.
About the privity, Mrs. Williams is the third party. Some people may think that she does not have the right to claim for anything related to the contract. However, in the case of marriage, husband and wife are considered as one party. That means Mrs. Williams can sue for her husband.
Decision: The wife wins. And the company has to refund 50% of the item’s value to fulfill its offer.
II. THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTRACT
In general, there are three main types of binding contracts including verbal (oral) contract, written contract, and implied contract.
A written contract will have signatures from all parties. It cannot be modified by oral contract, only by written contract. So, it will be difficult to dispute this contract. In addition, all contracts related to shares, land, and consumer credit contract must be in written contract. In general, the written contract is the most powerful contract. The parties cannot dispute all things which were mentioned in the contract expressly.
A verbal contract is made face-to-face between all parties. It could be supported with written evidence of terms. For examples, when a person go to a bookstore and buy a book, he will get a printed bill. The bill is not a contract, just an evidence showing information related to the transaction between the buyer and seller at a certain time. “Verbal agreements rely on the good faith of all the parties and can be difficult to prove” (Australian Government, 2013). That is the reason why normally, it is difficult to bind the contract (case Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. – 1987).
About implied contract, this contract is created by actions of parties, such as paying money to buy something. It can override the written contract unless there is a written contract on that point. Unilateral contract belongs to this type of contract. It is more difficult to prove the existence and terms of an implied contract (case Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon – 1917).
TERMS IN CONTRACTS REFERENCING THEIR MEANING AND EFFECT
In a contract, there are several terms that each of them has specific effects and meaning to the contract. They are conditions, warranties, innominate terms, express terms, implied terms, and exclusion clauses, limitation clauses.
Conditions, warranties, innominate terms
A condition is “a term which is vital to the contract, going to the root of the contract” (BPP Learning Media Ltd, 2010). So, if a party breaks a condition, the other party has the right to claim for the damage and put an end to the contract (case Poussard v Spiers – 1876). Warranty is “a less important term which does not go to the root of the contract, but is subsidiary to the main purpose of the agreement” (BPP Learning Media Ltd, 2010). In the case of breaking a warranty, the innocent party also has the right to claim for the damage but cannot end the contract (case Bettini v Gye – 1876). That is the reason why it is very important to identify the contract term is a condition or a warranty. In fact, there are many cases in which it is really difficult to distinguish whether the term of contract is a condition or warranty. Then, the court will depend on its impact to the contract to make a decision. These terms are called innominate terms. (Case Schuler v Wickman Tools - 1974)
Express and implied terms
The express term will show clearly a term agreed by all parties. It is easy to find out this term and that is why the court always looks for express terms at first. On the other hand, the implied term is not spoken or mentioned expressly (case Hutton v Warren – 1836). It is divided into three different types. First, it is implied term by custom, “where a particular term is prevalent in a trade the courts may imply a term in a contract of the same type in that trade” (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2001). Second, terms implied in fact which “are based on the imputed intention of the parties”. And third, it is terms implied in law, in which “the courts may imply a term in law in contracts of a defined type, for examples, Landlord/tenant, retailer/customer where the law generally offers some protection to the weaker party” (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2001).
Remedies and vitiating factors
Damages are compensations to the party suffering a loss from the breach of contract. In a claim for damages, there are three related factors. First, it is causation which aims to find out who causes, and why they cause the damage. The second factor is remoteness. “Under the rules of remoteness of damage set out in Hadley v Baxendale, a claimant may only recover losses which may reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or those which may reasonably be supposed to be in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made” (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012) (case Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos – 1969). And the last factor is mitigation of loss. It is a duty of claimant to reduce the loss when the contract is breached. If the defendant can prove that the claimant does not do anything to mitigate the loss, the compensation that defendant has to pay will be reduced (case Payzu v Saunders – 1919).
Specific performance is an order from the court requiring defendant has obligation for the breach of contract and its damage. It is not used for contract of employment, personal service, or when it creates a hardship. (case Patel v Ali – 1984).
Injunction is an equitable remedy of the court in which the defendant is required to do or not to do something. There are three types of injunction, including: interlocutory or interim (temporary injunction until a court hearing), prohibitory (a court order that a party must not do something), and mandatory (an order that a party must do something). However, there are still some exceptions, such as the court will not stop someone from their right to earn a living (case Warner Bros v Nelson – 1937).
Apply the elements of contract in given cases in the scenario
Case: Amy Smith v EZ Cooking
Analysis: First, it is a binding contract will fully offer, acceptance, and consideration. The company lent the refrigerator with a built-in ice maker at a rate of £50 per month and Amy accepted. In return, the company increased profit from lending the item, and Amy had the refrigerator to use.
However, there was a term in the contract stating that “EZ Kooking would ensure the refrigerator would work properly for the term of the contract”. This term was not stated as a condition or warranty and really difficult to identify. This is an innominate term. In order to figure this problem out, the impact of this term to the contract must be considered. Normally, using a refrigerator aims to keep all kinds of drink and food in a good condition. The refrigerator that Amy Smith leased from EZ Cooking has a better point than normal because of a built-in ice maker. This point makes the refrigerator more values. However, compared to the whole value of this item, the built-in ice maker is just a little thing which does not affect too much to the using value of the refrigerator. From this point, the term in the contract can be seen as a warranty, like a case Schuler v Wickman Tools (1974) in which the defendant missed out some of 1,400 visits that claimant required. And it is stated that in the case of breaking a warranty, the innocent party can claim for the damage but cannot end the contract. So, in the case in the scenario, Ms. Smith could not return the item to Mr. Jones. Her action was a breach of the contract.
About EZ Cooking, it is Ms. Smith who voided the contract. However, the company had a chance to mitigate the loss. It was the time when Ms. Smith returned the refrigerator and left it outside the front door of the company’s store. The company did not take it back. So, Mr. Jones has to incur a loss of losing the refrigerator. It was the same as in the case Payzu v Saunders (1919) in which the claimant had opportunity to purchase goods at the discounted price after the defendant terminated the original contract but he rejected that.
Decision: Ms. Smith breached the contract so she is claimed to the compensation. However, she only has to pay the remaining payment of the lease, not include replacing the refrigerator having the same value as the lost one because of the mitigation of loss from the company.
CONCLUSION
Contract law is a complicated issue. Working with contract is not an easy task. It is essential to know clearly about this law. It helps you to avoid a kind of treating and any losses to your business. So, you must be careful when you read, and sign in any contract.
In the case of EZ Cooking, the company has disregarded some factors in contract law. For examples, in doing advertisement, after giving an offer, the company claimed that it didn’t have any responsibility about that. Or in the case of leasing refrigerator, it blamed all fault to the client and did nothing to mitigate its loss. In order to avoid these lawsuits, EZ Cooking should have a lawyer as a consultant for its activities.
This report was about UK law. It was done by doing many researches through all types of sources, including the Internet, books, and even doing interviews with lawyer. The researcher tried hard to find and read as many contract lawsuits as she could. This aims to provide a strong and enough evidences for every factor. With such a huge of information sources, the report is expected to bring a lot of useful knowledge to readers. However, due to the lack of expert and not having experiences in this field, the report may have some weak points such as weak evidences.
REFERENCES
G.H.Treitel. (2005) The Law of Contract. 10th edition. Sweet & Maxwell.
BPP Learning Media Ltd (2010) Business Law. 1st edition. BPP Learning Media Ltd.
Catherin Elliott and Frances Quinn (2007) Contract Law. 6th edition. Pearson Education Ltd.
Jimmy O’Riordan (2003) A2 Law for OCR. 1st edition. Heinemann Educational Publishers.
4lawschool.com (2001) Mailbox Rule. [Online]
Available at: http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts101/mailbox.htm
[Accessed: 1 Nov 2012].
Lawteacher.net (2003) Promissory estoppel. [Online]
Available at: http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/promissory-estoppel.php
[Accessed: 4 Nov 2012].
Australian Government (2003) The different types of contracts. [Online]
Available at: http://www.innovation.gov.au/SMALLBUSINESS/WORKINGWITHCONTRACTS/Pages/ContractTypes.aspx
[Accessed: 5 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2001) Terms implied by common law. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Terms-implied-by-common-law.php
[Accessed: 5 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2012) Remedies in contract law. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Contract-remedies.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
Cases
4lawschool.com (2001) Harvey v. Facey Case Brief . [Online]
Available at: http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts/harvey.shtml
[Accessed: 4 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2001) Dickinson v Dodds. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Dickinson-v-Dodds.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (n.d.) Adams v Lindsell. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Adams-v-Lindsell.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
Networked knowledge (2012) Acceptance and Unilateral Contracts. [Online]
Available at: http://netk.net.au/Contract/03Acceptance.asp
[Accessed: 15 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2001) Errington v Errington Woods. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Errington-v-Errington-Woods.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2001) Rose & Frank Co v Crompton Bros. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Rose--and--Frank-Co-v-Crompton-Bros.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
Lawteacher.net (2003) Intention Cases. [Online]
Available at: http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/intention-cases.php
[Accessed: 4 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2012) Ward v Byham. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Ward-v-Byham.php
[Accessed: 4 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2012) Jackson v Horizon Holidays. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Jackson-v-Horizon-Holidays-1975.php
[Accessed: 7 Nov 2012].
Julie Clarke (2010) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256. [Online]
Available at: http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/carlill.html
[Accessed: 15 Nov 2012].
Lawnix.com (2008) Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. – Case Brief. [Online]
Available at: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/texaco-pennzoil.html
[Accessed: 15 Nov 2012].
Lawnix.com (2008) Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon – Case Brief Summary. [Online]
Available at: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wood-lucy.html
[Accessed: 15 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2001) Hutton v Warren. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Hutton-v-Warren.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2001) Poussard v Spiers. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Poussard-v-Spiers.php
[Accessed: 15 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2012) Schuler v Wickman Tools. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Schuler-v-Wickman-Tools.php
[Accessed: 7 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2012) Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Czarnikow-Ltd-v-Koufos.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
E-lawresources.co.uk (2012) Payzu v Saunders. [Online]
Available at: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Payzu-v-Saunders.php
[Accessed: 11 Nov 2012].
Lawteacher.net (2003) Cases on Equitable Remedies. [Online]
Available at: http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/remedies-cases-2.php
[Accessed: 12 Nov 2012].
APPENDICES
Summary of case (4LawSchool.com, 2001): Harvey v. Facey (1893)
Fact: Facey was going to sell his store to Kingston when Harvey and another telegraphed him a message stating “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price—answer paid.”
Facey answered by telegram, “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900.”
Harvey answered by telegram, “We agree to buy bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you.”
Harvey sued for specific performance of the agreement, and for an injunction to restrain Kingston from taking a conveyance of the property.
Decision: Trial court dismissed the action on grounds that the agreement did not disclose a concluded contract.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
Fact: The defendant offered to sell his house to the claimant and promised to keep the offer open until Friday. On the Thursday the defendant accepted an offer from a third party to purchase the house. The defendant then asked a friend to tell the claimant that the offer was withdrawn. On hearing the news, the claimant went round to the claimant's house first thing Friday morning purporting to accept the offer. He then brought an action seeking specific performance of the contract.
Decision: The offer had been effectively revoked. Therefore no contract existed between the parties. There was no obligation to keep the offer open until Friday since the claimant had provided no consideration in exchange for the promise. The offeror is free to withdraw the offer at any time before acceptance takes place unless a deposit has been paid.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Adams v Lindsell (1818)
Fact: The defendant wrote to the claimant offering to sell them some wool and asking for a reply 'in the course of post'. The letter was delayed in the post. On receiving the letter the claimant posted a letter of acceptance the same day. However, due to the delay the defendant's had assumed the claimant was not interested in the wool and sold it on to a third party. The claimant sued for breach of contract.
Decision: There was a valid contract which came in to existence the moment the letter of acceptance was placed in the post box.
Summary of case (Networked knowledge, 2012): R v Clarke (1927)
Fact: A reward has been offered for anyone giving information which led to the conviction of those responsible for the murders of policemen. Clarke gave information which led to such arrest and conviction.
Decision: His claim to the reward was resisted. Clarke's motive and intention in giving the evidence was to protect himself and to clear himself of the charge of murder. Only after arrest, conviction and appeal by the others, did Clarke think of claiming the reward.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Errington v Errington Woods (1952)
Fact: A father-in-law purchased a house for his son and daughter-in-law to live in. The house was put in the father's name alone. He paid the deposit as a wedding gift and promised the couple that if they paid the mortgage installments, the father would transfer the house to them. The father then became ill and died. The mother inherited the house. After the father's death the son went to live with his mother but the wife refused to live with the mother and continued to pay the mortgage installments. The mother brought an action to remove the wife from the house.
Decision: The wife was entitled to remain in the house. The father had made the couple a unilateral offer. The wife was in course of performing the acceptance of the offer by continuing to meet the mortgage payments. Under normal contract principles an offer may be revoked at any time before acceptance takes place, however, with unilateral contracts acceptance takes place only on full performance. Lord Denning held that once performance had commenced the Mother was estopped from revoking the offer since it would be unconscionable for her to do so. Furthermore there was an intention to create legal relations despite it being a family agreement.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Rose and Frank Co v Crompton Bros (1925)
Fact: The claimants and defendants entered an agreement for the supply of some carbonised tissue paper. Under the agreement the claimants were to be the defendant's sole agents in the US until March 1920. The contract contained an honorable pledge clause which stated the agreement was not a formal or legal agreement and shall not be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts in neither England nor the US. The defendants terminated the agreement early and the claimants brought an action for breach.
Decision: The honorable pledge clause rebutted the presumption which normally exists in commercial agreements that the parties intend to be legally bound by their agreements. The agreement therefore had no legal affect and was not enforceable by the courts.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Ward v Byham (1956)
Fact: An unmarried couple had a child together and lived together for five years. After turning the mother out of the house, the father agreed to allow the daughter live with the mother and promised to pay her £1 per week provided she ensured the child was well looked after and happy. The father made payments and the mother did what the father required. However, when the mother remarried he stopped making payments with the argument that it was the mother’s duty to look after and maintain the child.
Decision: The court decided that the contract was binding. The duty of a mother is only looking after her child no matter whether her child is happy or not. In this case, the mother made her daughter happy which was also a requirement from the father. This created a consideration. So, the father was bound to the contract.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Jackson v Horizon Holidays (1975)
Fact: Mr. Jackson booked a 28 day holiday in Ceylon for himself and his family through Horizon Holidays. He was disappointed by all the services and facilities of the hotel. Then, he sued the company. The trial judge made an award for the disappointment suffered by Mr. Jackson, but stated he could not take into account the disappointment suffered by his wife and children since they were not party to the contract. Mr. Jackson appealed.
Decision: Mr. Jackson was able to recover for the disappointment suffered by his wife and children. Apparently, Mr. Jackson could not get compensation for his happiness but he paid for the enjoyment for him and his family. So the company had to give a compensation for that, including for his family.
Summary of case (Julie Clarke, 2010): Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Fact: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co produced the 'Carbolic Smoke Ball' designed to prevent users contracting influenza or simialr illnesses. The company's advertisement for the product read, in part:
“100 pounds reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1,000 pounds is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter”.
After seeing this advertisement Mrs Carlill bought one of the balls and used it as directed. She subsequently caught the flu and claimed the reward. The company refused to pay; Mrs Carlill sued.
Decision: The Court, however, held that this was not a 'contract with the world' (which would not be practicable) but was simply an offer to the world capable of becoming a contract with anyone performing the sitpulated conditions. The Court also rejected the Company's claim that their advertisement constituted a mere 'puff' and was not intended to be promissory. The Court was assisted in this regard by the stipulation in the Company's advertisement that a bank deposit of £1,000 had been made as a demonstration of sincerity.
Summary of case (Lawnik, 2008): Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. (1987)
Fact: Pennzoil (P) and Getty Oil entered into a merger agreement whereby Pennzoil would acquire Getty. Pennzoil and Getty signed a Memorandum of Agreement subject to the approval of each board and issued a press release. Texaco (D) made an alternative offer to Getty’s board. Getty repudiated its agreement with Pennzoil and accepted Texaco’s offer.
P sued D for tortious interference with contract. D asserted that the Memorandum of Agreement was not a binding contract because it was subject to the approval of Getty’s board of directors and would expire by its own terms if not approved. P asserted that the contract was binding because the Memorandum had been executed by a group of parties that controlled the majority of outstanding shares in Getty. The jury returned a verdict for P and D appealed.
Decision: There was substantial evidence of P’s and Getty’s intention to be bound subject to approval by their boards of directors. This intent was shown by the Memorandum of Agreement and the press release. There is an arguable difference between a transaction being subject to various requirements, and the formation of an agreement being conditioned upon completion of such requirements. However, despite the clear language of reservation, the parties’ intent to be bound is still to be evaluated as a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances of the case. There was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding.
Summary of case (Lawnik, 2008): Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (1917)
Fact: Lady Duff-Gordon (D) contracted to give Wood (P) an exclusive right to market and license all of her designs and to endorse designs with her name. The exclusive contract required that they split all profits from Wood’s sales evenly but there was no express clause that stated that he would perform. Lucy placed endorsements on clothes without Wood’s knowledge and in violation of the contract and Wood sued.
Decision: The trial court denied Lady Duff-Gordon’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings. The intermediate appellate court reversed on the grounds that the contract lacked mutuality because Wood never promised to do anything. Wood appealed the dismissal of the complaint.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Poussard v Spiers (1876)
Fact: Madame Poussard entered a contract to perform as an opera singer for three months. She became ill five days before the opening night and was not able to perform the first four nights. Spiers then replaced her with another opera singer.
Decision: Madame Poussard was in breach of condition and Spiers were entitled to end the contract. She missed the opening night which was the most important performance as all the critics and publicity would be based on this night.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Schuler v Wickman Tools (1974)
Fact: Schuler were manufacturers of certain tools and Wickman were a sales company granted the sole right to sell certain tools manufactured by Schuler. A term of the contract between the parties was described in the contract as being a condition and provided that Wickman would send a sales person to each named company once a week to solicit sales. This imposed an obligation to make 1,400 visits in total. Wickman failed to make some of the visits and Schuler terminated the contract for breach of condition.
Decision: Despite the fact the contract had expressly stated the term was a condition, the House of Lords held that it was only a warranty.
Analysis: In this case, the court decided that the term in the contract was just a warranty. It is unreasonable to think the contract could be terminated just by missing some of 1,400 visits. Therefore, a breach of that term would not give rise to the right to repudiate the contract.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Hutton v Warren (1836)
Fact: The claimant was a farmer who had a tenancy on the defendant's fields. The claimant had planted corn and Barley on the fields and worked the fields to ensure the crops would grow. Before the field was due to be harvested the tenancy was terminated. The claimant then submitted a bill to the defendant for the work and cost of seed spent on the field as was customary in farming tenancies. The defendant refused to pay stating there was nothing in the tenancy agreement stating that such compensation was payable.
Decision: The court implied a term into the tenancy providing for compensation for the work and expenses undertaken in growing the crops. The term was implied as it was common practice for farming tenancies to contain such a clause.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (1969)
Fact: A contract for the carriage of a cargo of sugar was delayed by 9 days. The market price of sugar dropped following this delay due to the arrival of another cargo of sugar. The claimant sought to recover the difference from the defendant for their breach of contract. The defendant argued the damages were too remote since it was just as likely that the market price could increase.
Decision: Under the second limb in Hadley v Baxendale it was only necessary that the losses were in the reasonable contemplation of the parties as a possible result of the breach. There was no requirement as to the degree of probability of that loss arising. Since the defendant must have known that market prices fluctuate, the loss would have been in his contemplation as a possible result of the breach.
Summary of case (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2012): Payzu v Saunders [1919]
Fact: By the terms of the contract, the defendant was to deliver goods to the claimant on a monthly basis and the claimant was to pay for the goods within one month of delivery. The contract was to run for nine months. The claimant received the goods at a discounted price because he had committed to purchase from the supplier over the nine month period. The claimant was late in making the first installment (This amounted to a breach of warranty not entitling the defendant to repudiate the contract). The defendant refused to continue with the original contract but told the claimant that he would deliver the goods in future if the claimant paid cash on delivery and would still let him have the goods at the discounted price. The claimant rejected this offer and purchased the good elsewhere at a higher price. He then sued the defendant claiming the difference between the contractually agreed price and what he actually paid for them.
Decision: The claimant was not entitled to damages. He was given the opportunity to purchase at the discounted price but rejected this. He was under a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. The offer was a reasonable one and one which the claimant could easily have complied with.
Summary of case (Lawteacher.net, 2003): Patel v Ali (1984)
Fact: The vendor and her husband were co-owners of the house they contracted to sell in 1979. The husband's bankruptcy caused delay in completion. After the contract the vendor got bone cancer, had a leg amputated and later gave birth to her second and third children. The purchaser obtained specific performance, against which the vendor appealed on grounds of hardship. She spoke little English and relied on friends and relatives for help, hence it would be hardship to leave the house and move away.
Decision: It was held that the court could in a proper case refuse specific performance on the grounds of hardship subsequent to the contract, even if not caused by the plaintiff and not related to the subject matter. On the facts, there would be hardship amounting to injustice, therefore damages were awarded.
Summary of case (Lawteacher.net, 2003): Warner Bros v Nelson (1937)
Fact: The defendant, Bette Davis, an actress, agreed to act for the plaintiff, Warner Bros, and at the same time, not to act or sing for anybody else for two years without the plaintiff's written consent, and no other employment could be taken up during this period without the plaintiff's consent. Bette Davis was convinced that all the staring in mediocre film rolls provided by Warner Bros was ruining her career. She accepted an offer in Britain to appear in two film rolls in 1936 knowing that this was breaching her contract with Warner Bros. She fled to Canada to avoid legal prosecution.
Decision: It was held that the defendant could be restrained by injunction from breaking the second undertaking. She would not be forced to act for the plaintiff because she could earn a living by doing other work.
