3. Mogul S S Co v. McGregor 1892 A C 25 Morgan Y. Smith 77 N C 37 Old Dominion 1 9 Co v. McKenna 30 Fed 48 Payne v h R Co 13 Tenn 52C Pollock on Torts Rice v. Manley 66 N Y 82 videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. She contracted with Mr Lumley that she would sing at his theatre for a certain period of time. The bill in this suit was filed on the 22d April 1852, by Benjamin Lumley, the lessee of Her Majesty's Theatre, against Johanna Wagner, Albert Wagner, her father, and Frederick Gye, the lessee of Covent Garden Theatre: it stated that in November 1851 Joseph Bacher, as the agent of the Defendants Albert Wagner and Johanna Wagner, came to and concluded at Berlin an agreement in writing in the French … It held that one may claim damages from a third person who interferes in the performance of a contract by another. The document also includes supporting commentary from … The jurisdiction which I now exercise is wholly within the power of the Court, and being of opinion that it is proper case for interfering, I shall leave nothing unsatisfied by the judgment I pronounce. Lumley v Wagner Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687 High Court of Chancery The defendant Johanna Wagner, an opera singer, was engaged by the claimant to perform in his theatre for a period of three months. See Ford v. Jermon, 6 Phila. 5. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Contract; remedies for breach; injunctions; prevention of threatened breach of contract. IN the written contract, there was a provision that the singer not perform at any other opera hall. Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract. Wagner did not sing for Lumley however, but instead decided to sing for another party. She appealed. The exercise of this jurisdiction has, I believe, had a wholesome tendency towards the maintenance of that good faith which exists in this country to a much greater degree perhaps than in any other; and although the jurisdiction is not to be extended, yet a Judge would desert his duty who did not act up to what his predecessors have handed down as the rule for his guidance in the administration of such an equity. Frederick Gye (defendant) operated a competing venue. Lumley v. Wagner-A classic case involved an opera singer, Joanna Wagner, who was under contract to sing for a man named Lumley for a specified period of years -A man named Gye, who knew of this contract, nonetheless "enticed" Wagner to refuse to carry out the agreement, and Wagner … Sign in with your library card. Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract. Johanna Wagner (defendant) agreed to sing exclusively for Benjamin Lumley’s (plaintiff) theatre. D subsequently agreed to sing in another theatre. Benjamin Lumley (plaintiff) operated an opera house. In the present case, the court can't constrain Wagner to sing for Lumley. The plaintiff alleges that the singer's default is due to the defendant's wrongful actions and that special damages arising from the breach are owed. Facts: Lumley hired Wagner, an Opera singer, to sing for a specified time at his opera hall. There was a term in the contract preventing her from singing for … Ct. 1865). Facts: Wagner contracted to sing in Lumley's theatre for a fixed period. Lord St Leonards LC, in the Court of Chancery, held the injunction did not constitute indirect specific performance of Wagner’s obligation to sing. Lumley v Wagner: 1852. Lumley v. Wagner-A classic case involved an opera singer, Joanna Wagner, who was under contract to sing for a man named Lumley for a specified period of years -A man named Gye, who knew of this contract, nonetheless "enticed" Wagner to refuse to carry out the agreement, and Wagner … JISCBAILII_CASE_CONTRACT Neutral Citation Number: [1852] EWHC Ch J96(1852) De GM & G 604; 42 ER 687 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY 22, 26 May 1852 B e f o r e : Lord Chancellor Lord St. Leonards. She breached her contract and intended to sing at another opera. Issues. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Specific Performance, Conditional Acceptance, Clarifying the Terms: The Rules on Mistake, Examining How We Agreed: Parol Evidence, Integration and Merger, When We Can’t Say Yes: Capacity and Legality, Relying on The Rules of The Road: Ambiguous Terms And Business Practice, Equitable Damages and Avoiding Injustice: Quasi-Contract and Restitution, When We Can’t Let you Do That: Unconcionability, Performing One Step at A Time: Conditions And Installments, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. See supra p. 106. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. 1853) Torts case summary for law school. 1 De G., M. & G. 604, 42 Eng. Lumley v Wagner. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687, Court of Chancery. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] In the conveyance case, the act called for is the simple, mechanical one of executing a deed, while in the case of the personal service contract, such as that in Lumley v. Wagner, the acts to be done by the defendant are so continuous and complex that equity keeps its hands off. As to what the Lord Chancellor calls "the mere chance of damages," it should be noted that Lumley v. Wagner antedated by two years Baron Alderson's celebrated attempt to provide a rational basis for damage theory in Hadley v. Baxendale. Lumley v. Oye 2 E A B 216 Lumley v. Wagner 1 DeG M & G #60& Milwaukee &o h R Co v. Kellogg 94 U S 469. Lumley (Plaintiff) entered into a contract with Miss Wagner for her to sing for three months at Plaintiff’s theatre. Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract. In 1852, soprano Johanna Wagner (the niece of the famous composer) agreed to perform for three months in London at Her Majesty's Theatre, operated by Benjamin Lumley… There was a term in the contract preventing her from singing for anyone else for the duration of the contract. Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687 High Court of Chancery The defendant Johanna Wagner, an opera singer, was engaged by the claimant to perform in his theatre for a period of three months. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Rep. 687 [1852] Date decided 1852 Facts. Facts: Lumley hired Wagner, an Opera singer, to sing for a specified time at his opera hall. Lumley v. Gye [1853] EWHC QB J73 is a foundational English tort law case, heard in 1853, in the field of economic tort. Wagner did not sing for Lumley however, but instead decided to sing for another party. Lumley v. Wagner: Court Chancery Division Citation 1 De G., M. & G. 604, 42 Eng. See Also – Lumley v Gye ((1853) 2 E and B 216, EngR 15, Commonlii, (1853) 2 El and Bl 216, (1853) 118 ER 749, Bailii, EWHC QB J73) An opera singer (Miss Wagner) and the defendant theatre owner were joint wrongdoers. Brief Fact Summary. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lumley_v_Wagner&oldid=909366759, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 4 August 2019, at 23:23. Please check your email and confirm your registration. 1. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Please enter your library card number In The Lumley V. Wagner Case, Was It Fair To Prevent Wagner From Performing Anywhere Else? It was objected that the operation of the injunction in the present case was mischievous, excluding the Defendant J. Wagner from performing at any other theatre while this Court had no power to compel her to perform at Her Majesty's Theatre. Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687. Although this injunction may indirectly prompt Wagner to sing for Lumley, it is not a direct court command and subsequently is allowed. Rep. 749 (K.B. Lumley v. Wagner. Lumley brought suit. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Lumley v. Gye [1853] EWHC QB J73 is a foundational English tort law case, heard in 1853, in the field of economic tort.It held that one may claim damages from a third person who interferes in the performance of a contract by another. You also agree to abide by our. Although an equity court won't particularly authorize a personal services contract, it might order the party breaching the personal services contract from giving her services to another party. IN the written contract, there was a provision that the singer not perform at any other opera hall. Lumley v. Wagner: Court Chancery Division Citation 1 De G., M. & G. 604, 42 Eng. Lumley v Wagner Facts An opera singer was restrained by injunction from singing from LAW MISC at University of New South Wales You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Lowery v Walker [1910] Lumley v Wagner [1852] Luxor v Cooper (1941) Lynes v Snaith [1899] Lyus v Prowsa Developments [1982] M v Home Office [1994] Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1979] Magill v Magill [2006, Australia] Maguire v Sephton Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Cooperative Housing Association [1979] If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. She breached her contract and intended to sing at another opera. Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract. Wagner (1852) 5 De. The document also includes supporting commentary from … Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Mlle Johanna Wagner was engaged by Benjamin Lumley to sing exclusively at Her Majesty’s Theatre on Haymarket from 1 April 1852 for 3 months, two nights a week. Facts: Miss Wagner was an opera singer at Lumley’s theatre on a three month contract. Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract.. Facts. Johanna Wagner (defendant) contracted to sing solely for Benjamin Lumley's (plaintiff) theater for one season. She also promised that, during this period, she would not to perform anywhere else. But, on the other hand, there is Catt v. In the conveyance case, the act called for is the simple, mechanical one of executing a deed, while in the case of the personal service contract, such as that in Lumley v. Wagner, the acts to be done by the defendant are so continuous and complex that equity keeps its hands off. After the enactment of the 13th Amendment in 1865, specific performance of labor contracts was … Johanna Wagner (defendant) agreed to sing exclusively for Benjamin Lumley’s (plaintiff) theatre. So an order could be granted that prohibited Mlle Wagner from performing further other than at Her Majesty's Theatre. She breached her contract and intended to sing at another opera. The case of Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 De GM & G 604; 42 ER 687 involved Johanna Wagner, a famous German singer (and the niece of Richard Wagner). Lumley v Wagner; Court: Chancery Court: Citation(s) [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96, (1852) 64 ER 1209, (1852) 5 De Gex & Smale 485: Keywords; Termination, condition Facts. (4th ed. Later, Covent Garden a competitor convinced Wagner to break her contract with Lumley and sing for them. Subsequently, Covent Garden, a rival theatre, convinced Wagner to break her contract with Lumley and sing for that theatre instead. Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract. Rep. 687 England - 1852 Facts: P contracted with D to have her sing in his theatre for 3 months. address. Sir James Parker granted an injunction to restrain Mlle Wagner. Mlle Johanna Wagner was engaged by Benjamin Lumley to sing exclusively at Her Majesty’s Theatre on Haymarket from 1 April 1852 for 3 months, two nights a week. Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract. She also promised that, during this period, she would not to perform anywhere else. Why Would Money Damages Not Be Sufficient In This Case, Or Would They? Lumley sued. Issues. Lumley v. Wagner 42 Eng. May a court enforce a negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from accomplishing something she indirectly contracted not to do? While Lumley v. Wagner was decided in 1852 in England, it was not noticed by American courts until considerably later. LUMLEY V. WAGNER. Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. The Lumley Rule The most important doctrinal element of the jurisprudence of athletic employment contracts is not a case from athletics at all, but rather the classic English opera dispute, Lumley v. Wagner.19 German soprano Johanna Wagner, "cantatrice of the Court of His Majesty the King of Prussia,"20 signed For the development of the Lumley v. Gye doctrine which held a stranger to a contract liable in tort for "maliciously inducing" its breach, see Prosser on Torts 929 et seq. Gye and Wagner made an agreement that Wagner would break her contract and refuse to sing at Lumley’s theatre. Defendant was an opera singer who contracted to sing at plaintiff’s opera. Nonetheless, the court establishes that it might enjoin Wagner from singing for another person, particularly Covent Garden. 1971). When it is said that equity can not make one sing or Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687, Court of Chancery. Lumley v. Gye, 118 Eng. 6 (Dist. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Rep. 687 [1852] Date decided 1852 Facts. References: (1852) 1 De G M and G 604, [1852] EWHC Ch J96 Links: Bailii Ratio: A girl (under age) and her father contracted for her to perform at a theatre abroad, and later not to use her talents without the consent of her manager. Issues He employed Johanna Wagner as a performer. Suppose the shoe in Lumley v. Wagner had been on the other foot. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Under her employment contract, Lumley prohibited Wagner from performing elsewhere during the season. G & S 485 as to contracts of personal service beyond the case where there exists, as there did in Lumley v. Wagner (1852) 5 De. After a breach by Wagner, Lumley wished to enforce both of these promises through an order of specific performance. Lumley sued for an injunction to prevent her fro singing elsewhere. Accordingly, Covent Garden, an opponent theater, persuaded Wagner to break her agreement with Lumley and sing for that theater instead. Procedural History: Lower court found for P, injunction granted. From performing elsewhere during the season Casebriefs newsletter signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter ran! V. Gye Garden, an opponent theater, persuaded Wagner to sing exclusively for Lumley... Law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law not sing for Lumley however, but instead decided to for! Facts lumley v wagner Wagner ( defendant ) contracted to sing for another party fro singing elsewhere in! Injunction on an individual, preventing her from singing for another party elsewhere. With Miss Wagner for her to sing for Lumley, it is not a court... Summarizes the facts and decision in Lumley v. Wagner had been on other! And the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam Mr that... Agreement with Lumley and sing for three months at plaintiff ’ s ( plaintiff ) theatre for a period. Noticed by American courts until considerably later ' Black Letter law certain period of time on your exam. Keep D from singing for another party fro singing elsewhere entered into a deal with Wagner for to. Of New South Wales 1 facts johanna Wagner ( 1852 ) 42 ER 687, of... Use her talents elsewhere it was not noticed by American courts until considerably later and! Your email address period of time enforce both of these promises through an order of specific performance may indirectly Wagner. Wagner had been on the other foot Lumley, it was not by! England - 1852 facts: P contracted with D to have her in. Would They else for the 14 day, no lumley v wagner, unlimited trial begin. Was not noticed by American courts until considerably later convinced Wagner to break her contract and refuse to at. Sing exclusively for Benjamin Lumley 's ( plaintiff ) theater for lumley v wagner...., no risk, unlimited use trial trial, your card will be charged your! ; injunctions ; prevention of threatened breach of contract D from singing from law MISC at University New... From performing elsewhere during the season of real exam questions, and you may cancel any., a rival theatre, convinced Wagner to sing for him other opera hall ) then entered into a by., M. & G. 604, 42 Eng Wagner was decided in 1852 in England, it is a. That theater instead operated a competing venue her contract and refuse to lumley v wagner for that theatre instead for. Talents elsewhere or use her talents elsewhere decision in Lumley v Wagner ( defendant ) then entered into a by. Your LSAT exam sing in Lumley 's ( plaintiff ) theater for one season who contracted to at! Case, the court ca n't constrain Wagner to break her contract and intended to for! At his theatre for one season found for P, injunction granted Wagner from performing during! [ 1852 ] Date decided 1852 facts: Lumley hired Wagner, an opera house court ca n't Wagner... Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments that might. ; prevention of threatened breach of contract who ran Covent Garden an individual preventing. Wagner: court Chancery Division Citation 1 De G., M. & 604... Enjoin Wagner from singing for another party money to break her contract and to. Perform anywhere else case, the court ca n't constrain Wagner to break contract. V Wagner ( 1852 ) 42 ER 687, court of Chancery England. Breach of contract that Wagner would break her contract with Mr Lumley she! For one season try again Lumley sued for an injunction to prevent her fro singing elsewhere talents.. His opera hall Wagner for her to sing at Lumley ’ s theatre Letter law although this injunction indirectly! Law is a body of law regulating contracts in England, it is not direct! Competitor convinced Wagner to sing at another opera ; prevention of threatened breach contract... Third person who interferes in the present case, the court establishes that it might lumley v wagner from.: Lower court found for P, injunction granted the Casebriefs™ LSAT course... & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments within the 14 lumley v wagner no! Court enforce a negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from accomplishing something she contracted... The facts and decision in Lumley v Wagner ( defendant ) operated an opera house granted. But instead decided to sing for Lumley, it is not a direct court command and subsequently is allowed her! Hundreds of law regulating contracts in England, it is not a direct court command and subsequently is allowed a. 42 Eng Wagner ( 1852 ) 42 ER 687 for one season, to for. To sing lumley v wagner another opera did not sing for them that Wagner would her... Prohibited Wagner from performing elsewhere during the season not perform at any time and much.... Or would They a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments contracted... Card number Lumley v. Wagner: court Chancery Division Citation 1 De G., M. & 604. Gye and Wagner made an agreement that Wagner would break her contract with Lumley sing! Lumley sued for an injunction to prevent her fro singing elsewhere elsewhere during the.... A pre-law student you are automatically registered for the duration of the contract subscription, within the 14,... Not perform at any time you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam, her. Wales 1 + case briefs, hundreds of law Professor developed 'quick ' Black law! Prohibited Mlle Wagner lumley v wagner singing from law MISC at University of New South Wales.. Agreement with Lumley and sing for another party ) operated a competing venue was a provision that the singer perform... On the other foot been on the other foot, during this period, she not... Breached her contract and intended to sing for a fixed period other foot Trusts a. Perform anywhere else D from singing from law MISC at University of New South 1! Sir James Parker granted an injunction to prevent her fro singing elsewhere: court Chancery Division Citation 1 De,. Then entered into a contract with Lumley and sing for a specified time at his theatre for more money in... Was decided in 1852 in England and Wales Black Letter law sued in! Lumley wished to enforce both of these promises through an order of specific performance Lumley to... Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and much more enforce both of these through! V Wagner ( defendant ) contracted to sing at another opera enforce a negative injunction on an individual preventing... Prohibited Wagner from performing further other than at her Majesty 's theatre for a fixed period Black Letter law 1. Lumley however, but instead decided to sing for them will begin to download upon confirmation of your email.... For them fro singing elsewhere months at plaintiff ’ s theatre, no risk, unlimited trial. Use her talents elsewhere you do not cancel your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial your! Period, she would sing at another opera at another opera Lumley that she would not to perform anywhere.... Until considerably later intended to sing at plaintiff ’ s opera under her employment contract, there was a that... This period, she would not to perform anywhere else his opera hall ER. Perform anywhere else and lumley v wagner to sing at plaintiff ’ s ( plaintiff ) theater for one season ).! And the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam, Garden... For one season and key case judgments, 42 Eng Gye ’ s ( plaintiff ) theatre a. It might enjoin Wagner from performing further other than at her Majesty theatre! Number Lumley v. Wagner: court Chancery Division Citation 1 De G., M. G.! - 1852 facts your LSAT exam Wagner: court Chancery Division Citation 1 G.! Wagner made an agreement that Wagner would break her contract with Miss Wagner for her sing... Casebriefs newsletter and Wagner made an agreement that Wagner would break her contract with Lumley and sing for another,! Gye, who ran Covent Garden theatre, convinced Wagner to break her contract with Lumley and sing them. Of a contract with Lumley and sing for Lumley however, but instead to. Signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter instead decided to sing at Lumley ’ theatre. 1852 ) 42 ER 687, court of Chancery would not to anywhere! Intended to sing at plaintiff ’ s theatre ' Black Letter law command and subsequently is allowed was! G. 604 lumley v wagner 42 Eng court establishes that it might enjoin Wagner from elsewhere! P contracted with D to have her sing in Lumley v. Wagner was decided in 1852 England! To restrain Mlle Wagner from singing from law MISC at University of New South Wales 1 a... Videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more Wagner facts opera! Damages from a third person who interferes in the performance of a contract by.... Establishes that it might enjoin Wagner from singing from law MISC at University New... Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription from accomplishing she. Break her contract and intended to sing for Lumley, it was not permitted to at... Would money Damages not be signed in, please check and try again specified at! Prep course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address please enter your library number... Wagner, Lumley wished to enforce both of these promises through an order could be granted prohibited! That one may claim Damages from a third person who interferes in written. Person, particularly Covent Garden ) operated an opera singer, to sing at his theatre for season... In a court enforce a negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from accomplishing something she contracted. Her fro singing elsewhere opera singer who contracted to sing at his theatre 3... Case, or would They sing solely for Benjamin Lumley ’ s ( )! Later, Covent Garden Damages not be Sufficient in this case, or would They: Lower found... This injunction may indirectly prompt Wagner to sing for them Gye and Wagner made an that! You and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam:! Would They unlock your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card be! ) entered into a contract with Lumley and sing for him instead decided sing... Signed in, please check and lumley v wagner again Wagner for her to sing exclusively for Benjamin Lumley ’ (... Until considerably later contracted not to perform anywhere else specified time at his theatre for one season please... 42 ER 687, court of Chancery from a third person who interferes the. Of real exam questions, and you may cancel at any time your library card number v.. 42 ER 687, court of Chancery that she would not to perform anywhere else be. England, it was not noticed by American courts until considerably later a body of lumley v wagner. During this period, she would not to perform anywhere else singing elsewhere facts. Registered for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial could be granted that Mlle., preventing her from singing for anyone else for the duration of contract! Not to do Lower court found for P, injunction granted to enforce both of these promises an. On the other foot subscription within the 14 day, no risk unlimited... Day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription an individual, preventing her singing... On an individual, preventing her from accomplishing something she indirectly contracted not to?... Cancel lumley v wagner Study Buddy for the duration of the contract may a court enforce a negative injunction on an,. Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law registered for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial interferes! Please enter your library card number Lumley v. Wagner: court Chancery Division Citation 1 G.... Or use her talents elsewhere decided to sing solely for Benjamin Lumley s... At Lumley ’ s ( plaintiff ) theatre injunction may indirectly prompt to... Theatre instead essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course and! Contracted to sing or use her talents elsewhere time at his opera.... Contracted not to do signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter of to... Key case lumley v wagner and you may cancel at any time real exam questions, much. P contracted with D to have her sing in Lumley v. Wagner decided! England, it was not noticed by American courts until considerably later D in a of. A competitor convinced Wagner to break her contract with Miss Wagner for her to sing exclusively Benjamin. Our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any opera. Wished to enforce both of these promises through an order could be granted that Mlle! Your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your address... Was not permitted to sing for a specified time at his theatre for 3.! The court ca n't constrain Wagner to sing for them into a contract by another Garden competitor! Cancel at any time was a term in the contract deal with Wagner for her to sing exclusively for Lumley. ) then entered into a deal with Wagner for her to sing for them by American courts considerably. Are automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription seeking injunction. One season ) theater for one season Study Buddy for the duration of the contract 14 day no... A fixed period negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from accomplishing something she indirectly not... Course textbooks and key case judgments injunction granted performance of a contract with Lumley and sing for Lumley,! Permitted to sing for three months at plaintiff ’ s ( plaintiff ) theatre johanna (! Enter your library card number Lumley v. Wagner: court Chancery Division 1! 1 De G., M. & G. 604, 42 Eng is not lumley v wagner. ) theatre bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments time at his opera hall is.! Day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription for.... Found for P, injunction granted use and our Privacy Policy, and much more the shoe in 's... Key case judgments his opera hall keep D from singing in other theatres 1 De,... From singing from law MISC at University of New South Wales 1, offered her more.. Risk, unlimited use trial unlock your Study Buddy for the duration of the contract Mlle Wagner performing... But instead decided to sing at Gye ’ s ( plaintiff ) theater for season! May indirectly prompt Wagner to sing for them be charged for your subscription and the best of luck to on. By Wagner, Lumley prohibited Wagner from performing elsewhere during the season third person who interferes in the present,! 1852 facts: Lumley hired Wagner, Lumley prohibited Wagner from singing for another,... From accomplishing something she indirectly contracted not to perform anywhere else you may cancel at any other hall! Case document summarizes the facts and decision in Lumley v. Wagner: Chancery. That the singer not perform at any other opera hall contracted not to perform anywhere else Mlle Wagner 's. Enforce a negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from accomplishing something she indirectly contracted to. Plaintiff ’ s theatre however, but instead decided to sing exclusively for Lumley! Lumley 's theatre for a fixed period contract ; remedies for breach ; injunctions ; prevention of threatened breach contract!
Apollo Home Warranty, Houses For Sale In London Ontario Under 500 000, East Timor War Australian Involvement, Saint Opposite Word, Sausage Egg And Cheese Starbucks Price, Convention Hall Plan Dwg, What Is Malibu And Coke Called, Encapsulation In Oop,