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
1. [2003] E.W.C.A. Civ 323; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 830; [2003] RLR §101; noted J.Edelman [2003] RLR.
2. [2002] E.W.H.C. 1353.
3. These included variation of contract, implied licence, estoppel or waiver, and laches or acquiesance.
4. [2002] E.W.H.C. 1353, para. [49].
5. [2001] 1 A.C. 268.
6. At paras [14]–[15].
7. [1974] 1 W.L.R. 798.
8. At paras [34]–[35].
301