i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

RESPONSES TO A BREACH OF CONTRACT

Experience Hendrix v. PPX Enterprises 1
Jimi Hendrix was a rock music sensation in the 1960s whose career ended abruptly when he died in 1970 aged 27. In 1967, the respondent recording company, PPX Enterprises Inc., had brought legal actions against Jimi Hendrix for alleged breaches of a recording contract concluded in 1965 but these proceedings were eventually settled in 1973. Since 1973, however, PPX had exploited various master recordings of the late artiste in breach of the settlement agreement. The present suit was brought by the appellant company, Experience Hendrix (effectively owned by the beneficiary of Jimi Hendrix’s estate), in relation to these breaches. Before Buckley, J., in the High Court,2 none of the respondents’ defences3 prevailed against the appellants’ claims and an injunctive order was granted to restrain the respondents from future unauthorized exploitation of the masters. The appellant’s claims for substantial financial reliefs in respect of the respondents’ past breaches (which took place in 1995 and 1999) were, however, disallowed on account of the impracticality or impossibility of quantifying the financial loss which might have resulted from such breaches.4 The appellant appealed against the latter determination.
In the Court of Appeal, the appellant relied on the House of Lords’ decision in A.-G. v. Blake 5 to assert its entitlement to substantial pecuniary awards quantifiable on two alternative bases;6 the first being an account of the profits which the respondents derived from their offensive conduct, and the second, an amount, measured by reference to the respondents’ gains, representing such sum which the appellant could reasonably have exacted for licensing the respondents’ breaches (as exemplified by Wrotham Park Co. Ltd. v. Parkside Homes Ltd. 7 ). The appeal judges unanimously endorsed the latter measure as the appropriate remedial response in this instance. In the leading judgment, Mance, L.J., accepted as established by Blake the proposition that a contracting party who has not sustained any financial loss for breach may exceptionally be entitled to a substantial financial remedy.8 In his Lordship’s view, the two measures of award pleaded by the

301

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.