Search results
In deciding whether such clause is of restraint of trade, the English court will apply the concept of reasonableness and fairness. In Malaysia, the position is different and this can be found in the case of Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v. Hillary Ang & Ors (Collectively Known As “The Search”) & Anor [1994] 3 CLJ 806. It was held that once the ...
Kanhaya Lal v National Batik of India Ltd ILR (1913) 40 Cal 598, PC (Appeal fron India) o The P was the proprietor of Delhi Cotton Mills while the D was a bank which obtained judgment against another company, Delhi Cotton Mills Co. o Due to the similarity between that company's name and the P's, the P's property was wrongly attached. o The P ...
To show that a post-termination non-compete clause is enforceable, the ex-employer must demonstrate that such clause: [6] is reasonable in the interests of the parties concerned and the public. Reasonableness is determined based on, among others, the duration of operation, geographical scope and activity scope of the clause.
Jul 24, 1985 · POLYGRAM RECORDS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NAPA COUNTY, Respondent; DAVID H. REGE, Real Party in Interest.
Jan 20, 2006 · For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law. POLYGRAM RECORDS INC v. LEGACY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC (2006) Docket No: No. M2003-02608-COA-R3-CV. Decided: January 20, 2006. Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee,Middle Section, at Nashville.
The local Polygram companies handled all PolyGram labels, most notably Philips, Verve Records Mercury and Deutsche Grammophon. Over the years some of the companies also started using the Polygram brand as a label. In 1985 Siemens reduced its stake in PolyGram to 10%. Two years later it sold its remaining stake to Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken B.V.
Polygram Records SB v The Search They must prove that they suffered some manifest disadvantage ie major modification of terms of contract. Allcard v Skinner The victimisation of one party by the other. The wrongfulness of the transaction must be shown: it must be one in which an unfair advantage has been taken of another.
