Duff v. Russell
14 N.Y.S. 134 (1891)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may grant an injunction to prevent a performer with unique and special talents from working for a competitor during their contract term, as such a breach would cause irreparable harm. A negative covenant prohibiting work for others can be implied from the exclusivity of the services promised in the contract.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Duff, a theatrical manager, entered into a written contract with the defendant, Russell, a distinguished actress and singer, for her to perform soprano roles in his operas for the 1887-88 and 1888-89 seasons.
- The contract required Russell to perform seven times per week in New York for $300 per week, and for Duff to supply the costumes.
- For one opera, 'The Queen’s Mate,' Russell was required to wear tights, a costume she wore for approximately 150 performances.
- While under contract with Duff in Chicago, Russell was secretly contacted by Aronson, the manager of the rival Casino theater, and they discussed a potential engagement.
- On November 22, 1888, Russell notified Duff she would take a two-week rest, claiming her cold was caused by wearing tights and stating she would never wear them again.
- Two days later, on November 24, 1888, Russell left Duff's company and entered into a contract to perform for Aronson at the Casino.
- Russell then refused to perform in Duff's opera scheduled for January 7, 1889, and was advertised to appear at the rival Casino on January 14, 1889.
- Duff could not find another actress and singer of equal repute to replace Russell for the remainder of the season, which would cause him irreparable damage.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Duff, sued the defendant, Russell, in a court of first instance to obtain an injunction restraining her from performing at the Casino theater.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction.
- A hearing was then held on the plaintiff's motion to continue the injunction for the duration of the legal action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the equitable power to enjoin a singer with unique and special talents from performing for a competitor when her contract does not contain an express negative covenant not to perform elsewhere?
Opinions:
Majority - Freedman, J.
Yes. A court may enjoin a uniquely talented performer from working for a competitor, even without an express negative covenant, because such a restriction is implied by the nature of the agreement. The court looks to the substance, not the form, of the contract. Russell's agreement to perform seven times per week for Duff in New York made it impossible for her to perform elsewhere without violating her contract, thus a negative clause was unnecessary. Her services were unique and her breach caused Duff irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated with monetary damages. The court dismissed Russell's defense that wearing tights was a health hazard, finding it to be a 'mere pretense' based on her prior secret negotiations with the competitor, her offer to wear the tights for an additional $150 per week, and her failure to seek a reasonable compromise with Duff.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that in personal services contracts involving unique talent, a court may imply a negative covenant of exclusivity from the positive obligation to perform. It demonstrates that the absence of an explicit non-compete clause is not a barrier to injunctive relief where the performer's skills are extraordinary and their breach would cause irreparable harm. The decision serves as a powerful precedent for employers of unique talent, affirming their ability to seek equitable remedies to prevent a star performer from working for a direct competitor. It also highlights that courts will closely scrutinize a party's justifications for breaching a contract, particularly when there is evidence of bad faith or pretext.
Unlock the full brief for Duff v. Russell