Posted by Estopped99 on November 26, 1999 at 06:42:18:
In Reply to: Mandatory Injunction posted by Patrick Gardner on November 20, 1999 at 12:17:10:
: If an entertainer signs a contract for a specified amount of time with an employer, is the entertainer legally bound to eventually provide the agreed upon service before providing the same service to another.
For example, if a singer signs to sing for 3 months at a lounge and elects not to for what ever reason, are they bound to provide this service before signing with another lounge after the three months have expired? In other words is loss of salary penalty enough?
I'm a second-year law student, so take this for what its worth. Wouldn't this mainly affect damages that the original lounge owner (in the example) could claim in a contract breach action?
There would seem to be many factors that could affect this, like whether the two owners are competitors, their geographical and demographic proximity (i.e., do they share the same customers),
and whether the services contracted for are unique (i.e. , background music for a jazz bar vs. Frank Sinatra [RIP]).
As I understand it, breaking a contract gives the non-breaking party the right to sue for damages and/or, in limited circumstances, specific performance. Unless there's a lot of money at stake, it seems that the practical negative effect of breaking this kind of contract would be to give the performer a bad reputation and possible limit future opportunities.
Could there be possible union action in this circumstance? I haven't taken labor law yet, so I have no idea. Would the AFM have anything to say?
It's late and finals are soon, so please don't rely on this information. Talk to a pro if you're really concerned.