My Law Tutor

Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief

April 01, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief

Warner Bros v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209 is a landmark case in English contract law, holding significant implications for exclusivity clauses, personal service contracts, and the concept of specific performance. This case study delves into the details of the dispute, the legal question it raised, and its lasting impact on the enforceability of exclusivity clauses in the entertainment industry and beyond.


The case centered on a disagreement between a prominent Hollywood studio, Warner Bros (plaintiff), and a rising star, actress Bette Davis (known by her married name, Ms. Nelson, in the lawsuit). Here’s a breakdown of the situation:

  • Warner Bros saw potential in Ms. Nelson’s talent and entered into a contract with her to secure her acting services exclusively for their films.
  • The contract stipulated a specific timeframe – a twelve-month period with a further twelve-month option for Warner Bros to extend the exclusivity. This exclusivity clause was a key element of the agreement.
  • Unfortunately, the professional relationship didn’t go as planned. Ms. Nelson, yearning for more artistic freedom and potentially better opportunities, decided to breach the contract.
  • She relocated to England and signed an agreement to act for another film company, directly violating the exclusivity clause in her contract with Warner Bros.


The central legal question in Warner Bros v Nelson revolved around the enforceability of the exclusivity clause:

  • Could Warner Bros obtain an injunction, a court order restraining Ms. Nelson from performing for any other company, and effectively force her to fulfill her contractual obligation of acting exclusively for them?

The case presented a challenging situation. While Warner Bros had a valid contract with an exclusivity clause, enforcing it literally could raise questions about personal service and artistic freedom.


The court issued a nuanced judgment that balanced the interests of both parties:

  • Partial Victory for Warner Bros: The court granted an injunction in favor of Warner Bros, but with a limited scope. The injunction only prevented Ms. Nelson from acting or performing for another company during the contract period. This upheld the exclusivity clause in that regard.
  • Limitations of Specific Performance: The court, however, rejected Warner Bros’ attempt to enforce the entire contract through an injunction. The court reasoned that forcing Ms. Nelson to work for them exclusively would essentially amount to indirect specific performance, a remedy typically not granted in personal service contracts. Specific performance compels a party to perform a specific act outlined in the contract, which can be challenging and potentially lead to unsatisfactory results in situations involving creative endeavors.


The court’s decision focused on two key aspects:

  • Balancing Interests: The court recognized the legitimacy of Warner Bros’ interest in securing Ms. Nelson’s exclusive services during the contracted period. The exclusivity clause ensured they could plan productions and capitalize on her rising stardom.
  • Nature of the Contract: However, the court also acknowledged the limitations of specific performance in personal service contracts. Forcing Ms. Nelson to act in their films could potentially lead to resentment and subpar performances, ultimately harming both parties. The court viewed an injunction preventing her from working for competitors as a more balanced approach that protected Warner Bros’ interests while respecting the personal nature of Ms. Nelson’s artistic expression.


Warner Bros v Nelson remains a leading case concerning exclusivity clauses in personal service contracts. It highlights the following:

  • Enforceability of Exclusivity Clauses: The case establishes that exclusivity clauses in personal service contracts can be enforceable, allowing studios or other entities to secure the exclusive services of actors, performers, or other professionals for a defined period.
  • Limitations of Specific Performance: The case clarifies the limitations of specific performance in personal service contracts. Courts might seek alternative remedies like injunctions to enforce certain aspects of the contract without compelling the personal service itself.


Warner Bros v Nelson remains a significant case in contract law. It clarifies the enforceability of exclusivity clauses in personal service contracts while recognizing the limitations of specific performance in such situations.

Why Choose Us:

Specializing in UK law dissertation proposal writing, we provide tailored assistance to students navigating the complexities of British legal academia. Our expert team offers guidance on structuring proposals, formulating research questions, and aligning with UK academic standards, ensuring that students develop compelling and viable research proposals.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief. Retrieved from
"Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Warner Bros v Nelson – Case Brief | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Hotson v East Berkshire AHA

UK Law . Last modified: July 22, 2024

Introduction to Hotson v East Berkshire AHA: In the hushed hallways of the English legal system, a seemingly straightforward accident – a young boy’s fall from a tree – ignited a fiery legal battle that reshaped the landscape of medical malpractice. Hotson v East Berkshire AHA, decided in 1985, stands as a pivotal moment in […]

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers – 2004

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers: In 2004, the legal world witnessed a landmark case that encapsulated the intricate balance between press freedom and individual privacy rights. “Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers” pitted supermodel Naomi Campbell against Mirror Group Newspapers over an article that shook the foundations of media ethics and privacy law in […]

Cundy v Lindsay

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Cundy v Lindsay In the bustling Victorian commercial landscape of 1877, a seemingly ordinary sale of handkerchiefs ignited a legal drama that continues to cast a long shadow on English contract law. Cundy v Lindsay, decided in 1878, delves into the murky waters of mistaken identity, fraudulent schemes, and the very essence of […]

Bannister v Bannister [1948]

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Bannister v Bannister: Bannister v Bannister [1948] is a seminal case in legal history, delving into intricate issues in both contract and tort law. This case study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the background, legal issues, arguments, procedural history, analysis, decision, and implications of this significant litigation. By exploring the complexities […]

Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland

UK Law . Last modified: March 12, 2024

Introduction to Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland: The case of Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland marks a pivotal moment in property law jurisprudence. This landmark case revolves around a dispute between Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd and Mr. and Mrs. Boland, presenting complex legal questions regarding property rights and contractual obligations. […]

Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

UK Law . Last modified: March 18, 2024

Introduction to Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store: Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store stands as a seminal case within the realm of contract law, showcasing the intricacies of contractual agreements and the obligations they entail. This case, which unfolded in a specific jurisdiction, involved Lefkowitz as the plaintiff and Great Minneapolis Surplus Store as […]

go to top