Knowledge

Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc

Source 📝

126: 216:
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.
27: 207:
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.’
215:
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
190:
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
206:
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
360: 199:
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.
477: 374: 95: 67: 545: 465: 74: 81: 63: 269: 540: 240: 44: 37: 420: 442: 88: 530: 48: 281: 52: 454: 396: 292: 233: 385: 431: 316: 226: 535: 171: 8: 187: 167: 144: 338: 257: 125: 327: 304: 524: 349: 186:
Experience Hendrix LLC was the successor in title to Jimi Hendrix's estate.
191:
licences to masters not in Sch A. Experience Hendrix sued for the breach.
408: 175: 26: 203: 218: 522: 64:"Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc" 234: 164:Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc 119:Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc 53:introducing citations to additional sources 270:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. 479:Dies v British Mining and Finance Corp Ltd 362:British Westinghouse Ltd v Underground Ltd 241: 227: 124: 546:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 43:Relevant discussion may be found on the 523: 506:, 461 F. Supp. 2d 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 421:Cooperative Insurance Ltd v Argyll Ltd 443:Wrotham Park Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd 222: 174:case, concerning the availability of 20: 13: 504:Experience Hendrix, LLC v. Chalpin 248: 14: 557: 282:Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth 178:damages for breach of contract. 36:relies largely or entirely on a 25: 541:2003 in United Kingdom case law 156:Contract, remedies, restitution 497: 1: 512: 455:Surrey CC v Bredero Homes Ltd 397:Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum 375:Banco de Portugal v Waterlow 293:Anglia Television Ltd v Reed 7: 194: 10: 562: 386:Saamco v York Montague Ltd 210: 531:English contract case law 474: 462: 451: 439: 428: 417: 405: 393: 382: 371: 357: 346: 335: 324: 313: 301: 289: 278: 266: 254: 155: 150: 140: 132: 123: 118: 16:English contract law case 491: 432:Attorney General v Blake 317:Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd 181: 273:, 382 P 2d 109 (1962) 172:English contract law 49:improve this article 339:Hadley v Baxendale 488: 487: 261:(1848) 1 Exch 850 258:Robinson v Harman 160: 159: 114: 113: 99: 553: 507: 501: 480: 466:Rowland v Divall 363: 328:Farley v Skinner 243: 236: 229: 220: 219: 128: 116: 115: 109: 106: 100: 98: 57: 29: 21: 561: 560: 556: 555: 554: 552: 551: 550: 521: 520: 515: 510: 502: 498: 494: 489: 484: 478: 470: 458: 447: 435: 424: 413: 401: 389: 378: 367: 361: 353: 342: 331: 320: 309: 305:Chaplin v Hicks 297: 285: 274: 262: 250: 247: 213: 197: 188:PPX Enterprises 184: 136:Court of Appeal 110: 104: 101: 58: 56: 42: 30: 17: 12: 11: 5: 559: 549: 548: 543: 538: 533: 519: 518: 514: 511: 509: 508: 495: 493: 490: 486: 485: 475: 472: 471: 463: 460: 459: 452: 449: 448: 440: 437: 436: 429: 426: 425: 418: 415: 414: 406: 403: 402: 394: 391: 390: 383: 380: 379: 372: 369: 368: 358: 355: 354: 347: 344: 343: 336: 333: 332: 325: 322: 321: 314: 311: 310: 302: 299: 298: 290: 287: 286: 279: 276: 275: 267: 264: 263: 255: 252: 251: 249:Remedies cases 246: 245: 238: 231: 223: 212: 209: 196: 193: 183: 180: 158: 157: 153: 152: 148: 147: 142: 138: 137: 134: 130: 129: 121: 120: 112: 111: 47:. Please help 33: 31: 24: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 558: 547: 544: 542: 539: 537: 534: 532: 529: 528: 526: 517: 516: 505: 500: 496: 482: 481: 473: 468: 467: 461: 457: 456: 450: 445: 444: 438: 434: 433: 427: 423: 422: 416: 411: 410: 404: 399: 398: 392: 388: 387: 381: 377: 376: 370: 365: 364: 356: 352: 351: 350:The Achilleas 345: 341: 340: 334: 330: 329: 323: 319: 318: 312: 307: 306: 300: 295: 294: 288: 284: 283: 277: 272: 271: 265: 260: 259: 253: 244: 239: 237: 232: 230: 225: 224: 221: 217: 208: 205: 201: 192: 189: 179: 177: 173: 169: 166: 165: 154: 149: 146: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 122: 117: 108: 97: 94: 90: 87: 83: 80: 76: 73: 69: 66: –  65: 61: 60:Find sources: 54: 50: 46: 40: 39: 38:single source 34:This article 32: 28: 23: 22: 19: 536:Jimi Hendrix 503: 499: 476: 464: 453: 441: 430: 419: 407: 395: 384: 373: 359: 348: 337: 326: 315: 303: 291: 280: 268: 256: 214: 202: 198: 185: 168:EWCA Civ 323 163: 162: 161: 145:EWCA Civ 323 102: 92: 85: 78: 71: 59: 35: 18: 409:Patel v Ali 176:restitution 525:Categories 513:References 105:April 2020 75:newspapers 446:1 WLR 798 400:1 WLR 576 45:talk page 483:1 KB 724 469:2 KB 500 308:2 KB 786 204:Mance LJ 195:Judgment 151:Keywords 141:Citation 296:1 QB 60 211:Outcome 89:scholar 412:Ch 283 366:AC 673 170:is an 91:  84:  77:  70:  62:  492:Notes 182:Facts 133:Court 96:JSTOR 82:books 68:news 51:by 527:: 242:e 235:t 228:v 107:) 103:( 93:· 86:· 79:· 72:· 55:. 41:.

Index


single source
talk page
improve this article
introducing citations to additional sources
"Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc"
news
newspapers
books
scholar
JSTOR

EWCA Civ 323
EWCA Civ 323
English contract law
restitution
PPX Enterprises
Mance LJ
v
t
e
Robinson v Harman
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth
Anglia Television Ltd v Reed
Chaplin v Hicks
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
Farley v Skinner
Hadley v Baxendale
The Achilleas

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.