Term
2.1
The expression “the Term” shall mean a period commencing on the date hereof and expiring upon your termination thereof in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause 2.2 below SAVE that if we call for all the Product Commitment hereunder then the Term shall expire six (6) months after the date of initial release in the UK of the last Album to be released hereunder in fulfilment of the Product Commitment
2.2
No sooner than one (1) year nor later than three (3) years after the date of initial release of a Commitment Album in the UK (other than the last such Album) you shall send us a cassette of bona fide demo recordings of a reasonable standard of songs that you intend shall comprise the next such Commitment Album (“Next Album Demos”) under cover of a notice hereunder specifying such intention and in the event that we shall fail to give you notice calling for such next Commitment Album within two (2) months of the date of our receipt of such demo recordings then you shall be entitled to serve notice on us terminating the Term hereof For the avoidance of doubt we shall be entitled to give you notice calling for a Commitment Album at any time prior to the expiry of such two (2) month period following the release of the previous such Commitment Album
2.3
We shall be entitled to suspend the Term in respect of any period in which you fail or refuse to comply with the performance of your obligations hereunder SAVE that no single period of suspension shall exceed one (1) year
[….]
4.
- Introduction
- Procedural history
- The applications
- The SJ Application
- Jameel v Dow Jones and Co
- The Amendment Application
- Conduct of the hearing
- Relevant factual background
- Term
- RELEASE COMMITMENT
- The legal test for permission to amend
- Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International
- The proposed amendments for which permission is sought
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith
- Proposed reliance on clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of 2001 Agreement
- Submissions / assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – submissions
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – substance – submissions
- Panayiotou
- Nichols
- Schroeder
- John v James
- Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – submissions
- Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright
- Crosstown Music Co LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd & ors
- Crosstown
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – assessment
- Sullivan
