Warner Chappell Music
Search results
Chappell & Co. was an English company that published music and manufactured pianos. Founded by pianist Samuel Chappell, the company was one of the leading music publishers and piano manufacturers in Britain until 1980 when Chappell sold its retail activities to concentrate solely on music publishing.
This case of Chappell Co Ltd vs. Nestle is a landmark case which made the concept of consideration quite clear. This case revolved around the dispute regarding whether chocolate wrappers were valid consideration or not.
Apr 20, 2020 · Facts of Chappell & Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Nestle Co. Ltd. and Anr. Winneton Music Corporation were the sole owners of the copyright of a musical work entitled “Rockin’ Shoes”. The sole licensees were Chappell & Co. Ltd.
- Introduction
- Facts
- Issues
- Judgment
- Conclusion
This case has a dual relation- consideration, as under the Contract Law and the type of transaction taking place, as under the Copyright Act, 1956. Consideration, when explained in simpler words means ‘something in return. It is given under Section 2(d) of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 as the promisor doing or abstaining from doing or promising to ...
The main element of interest, in this case, is ‘Rockin’ Shoes’, a musical artwork that was licensed to Chappell & Co. Ltd. The owners of the copyright of the musical artwork were Winneton Music Corporation and they licensed it to only one corporation, that is the Appellant of the case, Chappell & Co. Ltd. Nestle ran an advertising campaign wherein ...
The main issues of this case were- 1. If the above said sale amounts to a retail sale or not. 2. If the empty wrappers amount to a sort of consideration as per Contract Law.
The case was decided by a majority of 3:2 in the Court of Law. It is established that these empty wrappers of chocolates are to be considered a part of the consideration and an injunction must be granted. Since the type of sale that is taking place in the current scenario is not explained under Section 8 of the Copyright Act, 1956. Thus, the decisi...
Buying the chocolate bars and paying money for them is of value to the respondent. Being something of value that has to be purchased by the customers to be eligible to get the discounts on the product, then it must form a part of the consideration. Customers need to pay to get the chocolate bars, which come with the wrappers, and hence they have in...
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] AC 97. Consideration need not have economic value. Facts. The defendants, Nestlé, contracted with a company manufacturing gramophone records to buy several recordings of music. The plaintiffs, Chappell & Co, held the copyright in these recordings.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd House of Lords Citations: [1960] AC 87; [1959] 3 WLR 168; [1959] 2 All ER 701; (1959) 103 SJ 561; [1959] CLY 573. Facts The defendants were a record company and a chocolate company (Nestlé). The record company made and sold to Nestlé a number of gramophone…
People also ask
Who is Samuel Chappell?
What happened in Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd?
Who owns Chappell Music?
Did Chappell & Co v Nestle a record selling company?
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
