''Macaulay v Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd''

974 Year 974 ( CMLXXIV) was a common year starting on Thursday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Europe * Battle of Danevirke: Emperor Otto II defeats the rebel forces of King Harald I, who ha ...

1 WLR 1308 is an

English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...

decision of the

House of Lords The House of Lords, also known as the House of Peers, is the Bicameralism, upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Membership is by Life peer, appointment, Hereditary peer, heredity or Lords Spiritual, official function. Like the ...

relating to

restraint of trade Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of '' Mitchel v Reynolds'' (1711) Lord S ...

Facts

Macaulay, a novice songwriter aged 21, entered a standard form agreement with Schroeder Music, whereby they would have the exclusive benefit of his compositions. The global copyright was assigned to another party in return for a fixed percentage of any royalties. This was to last five years and could be automatically extended for five years if the royalties went above £5000. Schroeder Music could terminate or assign the contract, but Macaulay could not, and Schroeder was under no obligation to publish or promote anything. Macaulay claimed the agreement was contrary to public policy.

Judgment

The House of Lords held the standard form agreement could not be justified as being purely moulded through negotiation, competition and public opinion. Macaulay had no bargaining power. The defendants purported to be able to arbitrarily decline to exploit the plaintiff's work in which event the plaintiff's remuneration under the agreement would be limited to a £50 advance payable thereunder during the five-year period. The defendants' power to assign precluded the argument that the restrictions would not be enforced oppressively. The defendants had failed to justify restrictions which appeared unnecessary and capable of oppressive enforcement. Lord Diplock said the following.

1 WLR 1308, 1316 Lord Reid, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Simon also sat on the case.

Notes

{{reflist, 2 English contract case law House of Lords cases 1974 in British law 1974 in case law

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes