RobbieRadio
05-25-09, 09:44 PM
Text Of Leon Hendrix Lawsuit Against Janie Hendrix
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/hendrix.pdf
Acrobat Reader Required
British Court Ruling Against Purple Haze Records
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4401703-1.html
Ed Chalpin PPX Court Case 1984
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/746/746.F2d.120.84-7132.1516.html
Ed Chalpin PPX Court Case 1987
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/818/818.F2d.266.86-7900.86-7704.587.html
British Court Rules Against PPX 2003
http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/experience_hendrix.htm
Relations between the estate of Jimi Hendrix (now represented by Experience Hendrix LLC) and the
record company PPX Enterprises Ltd have been strained for some thirty years. In the 1970s, they
settled a long-running lawsuit brought by PPX over breach by Hendrix of his exclusive recording
agreement. The settlement agreement permitted PPX to licence certain Hendrix recordings, but not
others, without the estate’s consent. In 2001, Experience Hendrix commenced fresh proceedings,
alleging that PPX was in breach of the settlement agreement. PPX argued that the estate’s failure to
object over the years meant that either the settlement agreement had been varied, PPX had an
implied licence, or Experience Hendrix was estopped from objecting now. However, these defences
failed and in July 2002 Experience Hendrix obtained an injunction - but not damages or an account of
profits.
In March this year, the Court of Appeal considered whether Experience Hendrix was in fact entitled to
an account of profits or award of damages in respect of PPX’s breaches. There was no evidence of
any financial loss suffered by Experience Hendrix as a result of the breaches. The Court of Appeal
therefore turned to the House of Lords ruling in HM Attorney-General v Blake (2001), that is, in
exceptional circumstances, the court has a discretion to require a defendant to account for the
benefits received from his breach of contract. As in Blake, PPX had knowingly done the very thing it
had contracted not to do and knew that Experience Hendrix would, in any event, not have consented;
further, the fact that Experience Hendrix was entitled to an injunction against future use showed that
it had a legitimate interest in preventing PPX’s profit-making activity. However, unlike Blake, the
circumstances here were not “exceptional” and so did not justify an order to account for all the
profits. Blake had been a double agent due to receive royalties from revelations about his breaches
of security published in breach of his contractual duty of secrecy under the Official Secrets Act. By
contrast, PPX’s breaches, although deliberate, had taken place in a commercial context and the
1973 settlement agreement had indicated that Experience Hendrix might be willing to contemplate
PPX’s further use of the recordings on suitable terms.
Given the background to the case and the nature of the settlement agreement, the Court of Appeal
ruled that, “as a matter of practical justice”, PPX should make reasonable payments in respect of the
benefit it had gained from using the non-Schedule A master recordings in breach of the settlement
agreement (as well as the agreed royalties in respect of sales of the Schedule A works – and, in
respect of which, the trial judge had been wrong to accept PPX’s undertaking to pay, in lieu of making
a court order). The Court intimated that the royalty rate for the non-Schedule A works should be at
least twice that agreed in 1967 for the Schedule A ones.
Case ref: Experience Hendrix LLC v (1) PPX Enterprises Inc (2) Edward Chalpin, CA, [2002] EWCA Civ
323, 20.3.2003.
British Court Rules Against PPX In Breach Of Contract Claim
http://www.lambchambers.co.uk/docs/art12.pdf Adobe Acrobat Reader Required
Experience Hendrix LLC v. PPX Enterprises Inc 2001
http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/Cases%20Chapter%2021/Experience%20Hendrix%20LLC%20v%20PPX%20Enterprises %20Inc.doc.
Experience Hendrix Wins $990,000 Judgement Against Ed Chalpin 2007
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/213540/judgment_paid_in_hendrix_litigation.html
Alan Douglas's Wife Sues Over Concealed Assets 2006
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/rube062406.htm
Experience Hendrix Wins $3.2 Million Judgement In Vodka Case 2009
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLABBERMOUTH.NET/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=114571
Experience Hendrix Wins Lawsuit Against Radioactive Records 2006
http://bonafiderecords.blogspot.com/2006/05/hendrix-estate-crushes-radioactive.html
Experience Hendrix Wins Rights To All Recordings Except 33 PPX Tapes 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2098252.stm
Ed Chalpin PPX VS. MCA & Are You Experiended LTD 1998 (Douglas & Branton)
1. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/July%201998/ppx.htm
2. http://www.nycourts.gov/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/May%201999/Ppx99.HTM
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/hendrix.pdf
Acrobat Reader Required
British Court Ruling Against Purple Haze Records
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4401703-1.html
Ed Chalpin PPX Court Case 1984
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/746/746.F2d.120.84-7132.1516.html
Ed Chalpin PPX Court Case 1987
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/818/818.F2d.266.86-7900.86-7704.587.html
British Court Rules Against PPX 2003
http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/experience_hendrix.htm
Relations between the estate of Jimi Hendrix (now represented by Experience Hendrix LLC) and the
record company PPX Enterprises Ltd have been strained for some thirty years. In the 1970s, they
settled a long-running lawsuit brought by PPX over breach by Hendrix of his exclusive recording
agreement. The settlement agreement permitted PPX to licence certain Hendrix recordings, but not
others, without the estate’s consent. In 2001, Experience Hendrix commenced fresh proceedings,
alleging that PPX was in breach of the settlement agreement. PPX argued that the estate’s failure to
object over the years meant that either the settlement agreement had been varied, PPX had an
implied licence, or Experience Hendrix was estopped from objecting now. However, these defences
failed and in July 2002 Experience Hendrix obtained an injunction - but not damages or an account of
profits.
In March this year, the Court of Appeal considered whether Experience Hendrix was in fact entitled to
an account of profits or award of damages in respect of PPX’s breaches. There was no evidence of
any financial loss suffered by Experience Hendrix as a result of the breaches. The Court of Appeal
therefore turned to the House of Lords ruling in HM Attorney-General v Blake (2001), that is, in
exceptional circumstances, the court has a discretion to require a defendant to account for the
benefits received from his breach of contract. As in Blake, PPX had knowingly done the very thing it
had contracted not to do and knew that Experience Hendrix would, in any event, not have consented;
further, the fact that Experience Hendrix was entitled to an injunction against future use showed that
it had a legitimate interest in preventing PPX’s profit-making activity. However, unlike Blake, the
circumstances here were not “exceptional” and so did not justify an order to account for all the
profits. Blake had been a double agent due to receive royalties from revelations about his breaches
of security published in breach of his contractual duty of secrecy under the Official Secrets Act. By
contrast, PPX’s breaches, although deliberate, had taken place in a commercial context and the
1973 settlement agreement had indicated that Experience Hendrix might be willing to contemplate
PPX’s further use of the recordings on suitable terms.
Given the background to the case and the nature of the settlement agreement, the Court of Appeal
ruled that, “as a matter of practical justice”, PPX should make reasonable payments in respect of the
benefit it had gained from using the non-Schedule A master recordings in breach of the settlement
agreement (as well as the agreed royalties in respect of sales of the Schedule A works – and, in
respect of which, the trial judge had been wrong to accept PPX’s undertaking to pay, in lieu of making
a court order). The Court intimated that the royalty rate for the non-Schedule A works should be at
least twice that agreed in 1967 for the Schedule A ones.
Case ref: Experience Hendrix LLC v (1) PPX Enterprises Inc (2) Edward Chalpin, CA, [2002] EWCA Civ
323, 20.3.2003.
British Court Rules Against PPX In Breach Of Contract Claim
http://www.lambchambers.co.uk/docs/art12.pdf Adobe Acrobat Reader Required
Experience Hendrix LLC v. PPX Enterprises Inc 2001
http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/Cases%20Chapter%2021/Experience%20Hendrix%20LLC%20v%20PPX%20Enterprises %20Inc.doc.
Experience Hendrix Wins $990,000 Judgement Against Ed Chalpin 2007
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/213540/judgment_paid_in_hendrix_litigation.html
Alan Douglas's Wife Sues Over Concealed Assets 2006
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/rube062406.htm
Experience Hendrix Wins $3.2 Million Judgement In Vodka Case 2009
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLABBERMOUTH.NET/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=114571
Experience Hendrix Wins Lawsuit Against Radioactive Records 2006
http://bonafiderecords.blogspot.com/2006/05/hendrix-estate-crushes-radioactive.html
Experience Hendrix Wins Rights To All Recordings Except 33 PPX Tapes 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2098252.stm
Ed Chalpin PPX VS. MCA & Are You Experiended LTD 1998 (Douglas & Branton)
1. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/July%201998/ppx.htm
2. http://www.nycourts.gov/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/May%201999/Ppx99.HTM