 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source .(April 2020) |
| Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [2003] EWCA Civ 323 |
| Keywords | |
| Contract, remedies, restitution | |
Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003] EWCA Civ 323 is an English contract law case, concerning the availability of restitution damages for breach of contract.
Experience Hendrix LLC was the successor in title to Jimi Hendrix's estate. PPX Enterprises were his music publishers and were suing him before he died. Three years after, they settled (1973). The agreement was that PPX were entitled to masters of some of his recordings, in Sch A of the agreement, provided PPX paid royalties to Experience Hendrix. In breach of the agreement, PPX granted licences to masters not in Sch A. Experience Hendrix sued for the breach.
Court of Appeal said it would be unjust if PPX could breach the settlement and avoid paying royalties, which they would have had to pay if the songs were on Sch A. But the case was not exceptional enough to allow an account for all profits.
Mance LJ said they should pay ‘a reasonable sum’ for using the material. That was ‘such sum as might reasonably have been demanded’ by the estate ‘as a quid pro quo for agreeing to permit the two licences into which PPX entered in breach of the settlement agreement’. He said there was an element of artificiality, because permission for the licences may never have been given, but this directed ‘the court’s attention to the commercial value of the right infringed’ and the court could ‘assess the sum payable by reference to the fees that might in other contexts be demanded and paid between willing parties.’
The Hendrix vs Chalpin arguing looked as if it would are resolved in 1973 by method of an edict in the litigation of PPX Enterprises, Inc. v. Davis. Judicial proceedings were held within the judicature of Justice in London. In brief, the Hendrix Estate has acknowledged Enterprises' entitlement of thirty three percent of master recordings and also the preservation of rights to Increased royalty was ruled out in favor of the Estate. Enterprises abandoned all claims against the defendants and in agreement to surrender alternative master recordings then in its possession. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and against Enterprises within the quantity of fifty thousand pounds, and Chalpin in person warranted payment of that add. [1]
At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.
A license is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something.
A royalty payment is a payment made by one party to another that owns a particular asset, for the right to ongoing use of that asset. Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation. A royalty interest is the right to collect a stream of future royalty payments.
Cleveland International Records is an independent record label formed in 1976 by Steve Popovich, Sr. originally founded in Willoughby, Ohio and moved to Nashville.
The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to give up their gains to the claimant. It should be contrasted with the law of compensation, the law of loss-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to pay the claimant for their loss.
Track Record was founded in 1966 in London by Kit Lambert and Chris Stamp, then managers of the rock group The Who. It was one of the first British-owned independent record labels in the United Kingdom. The most successful artists whose work appeared on the Track label were The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Who, The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, Thunderclap Newman and Golden Earring. The label ceased operations in 1978 but was revived in 1999.
Juggy Murray was an American record label owner, producer and singer-songwriter. He co-founded Sue Records which launched the career of Ike & Tina Turner. Subsidiary labels under the Sue were Symbol, Broadway, Eastern and Crackerjack. Murray recorded artists, including Don Covay, Jimmy McGriff, Inez Foxx, and Baby Washington, as well as releasing solo records.
Philip Collins Ltd v Davis [2000] 3 All ER 808 is an English unjust enrichment case, an example of a restitution claim and the change of position defence.
The English law of Restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. Its precise scope and underlying principles remain a matter of significant academic and judicial controversy. Broadly speaking, the law of restitution concerns actions in which one person claims an entitlement in respect of a gain acquired by another, rather than compensation for a loss.
DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 is a UK company law case where, on the basis that a company should be compensated for loss of its business under a compulsory acquisition order, a group was recognised as a single economic entity. It stands as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of incorporation of a company.
Cutter v Powell (1795) 101 ER 573 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract.
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 is an English contract law case, which is best known for a classic formulation by Parke B on the purpose and measure of compensatory damages for breach of contract that,
the rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.
Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc. 66 F.3d 1091 is a court case in which Microsoft contended that in being licensed rights to sell Microsoft Word (Word) software, the then-bankrupt DAK Industries had been granted permission to use this intellectual property, so Microsoft was entitled to receive payments during post-bankruptcy in the form of royalties.
Errington v Wood[1951] EWCA Civ 2 is an English contract law and English land law judicial decision of the Court of Appeal concerning agreement and the right to specific performance of an assurance that is relied on.
F.B.T. Productions, LLC, et al. v. Aftermath Records, et al. 621 F.3d 958 was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt with how Federal Copyright Law applied to the sales and licensing contracts of music downloads and other downloadable copyrighted material. Specifically, the circuit court ruled that a licensing provision in the contract between F.B.T. Productions and Aftermath Records unambiguously applied to permanent downloads and mastertones offered through third party distributors. After reviewing the First Sale Doctrine and the nature of Aftermath's contracts with its distributors, the circuit court concluded that such downloads constituted a licensing of copyrights rather than a sale, causing Aftermath to pay higher royalties to F.B.T. under their agreement.
Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., 187 Cal.App.4th 1295 (2010), is the second appeal on a dispute dated back to 1999. During the original 2000 case, defendant E*Trade, an online financial services company, was found liable for maliciously and willfully misappropriating trade secrets pertaining to wireless stock trading technology acquired from the plaintiff, Ajaxo. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act E*Trade was required under a mutually signed Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to keep Ajaxo's trade secrets confidential. After a jury trial in 2003, E*Trade was fined $1.3 million to be paid to Ajaxo for the misappropriation and breach of NDA. The court denied Ajaxo's request for additional damages. All parties appealed. In 2005 the California courts of appeal affirmed the original ruling but remanded the case back to the trial court to determine additional damages. A jury verdict in 2008 rejected claims raised and demands for royalty damages from Ajaxo. In trade secret cases it is common for a plaintiff to seek royalty damages when they are unable to show an actual loss or that the defendant received some inequitable benefit from the misappropriation. In this case the court refused to allow evidence of royalty damages, claiming there were no net damages. Ajaxo appealed. In 2010 the California courts of appeal once again remanded the case back to the trial court reasoning that in such cases an exact quantitative measure of wrongful enrichment damages incurred by the plaintiff might not be sufficient to reject the claim of reasonable royalties based damages
Royalty Exchange is an American company that operates an online platform for buying and selling royalty assets of any type, mostly music, where royalty owners can sell their future payments to investors as alternative assets. The company hosts a centralized marketplace and online auction platform that connects a community of over 22,500+ investors with owners of royalty-based assets.
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015), is a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court for several reasons. One is that the Court turned back a considerable amount of academic criticism of both the patent misuse doctrine as developed by the Supreme Court and the particular legal principle at issue in the case. Another is that the Court firmly rejected efforts to assimilate the patent misuse doctrine to antitrust law and explained in some detail the different policies at work in the two bodies of law. Finally, the majority and dissenting opinions informatively articulate two opposing views of the proper role of the doctrine of stare decisis in US law.
Ed Chalpin was a record executive and producer. He is probably remembered for his association with Curtis Knight and the Squires which caused problems for Jimi Hendrix throughout his career. Chalpin is responsible for the recordings from that period, some of which appear on You Can't Use My Name: The RSVP/PPX Sessions.
Bagdasarian Productions is an American production company founded by Ross Bagdasarian Sr. on February 20, 1961. The company holds the rights to Alvin and the Chipmunks and related intellectual property assets. The company is currently owned and operated in by Ross Bagdasarian Jr. and Janice Karman. The company has co-produced many television series, specials, and films and initiated multiple lawsuits to protect the characters.