## Facts

- Duff, a theatrical and operatic manager, contracted in writing with Russell, a well-known comic-opera actress and singer, to perform as a soprano for two seasons.
- The agreement contemplated frequent performances (seven per week) in operas Duff would produce during the relevant season(s).
- Duff agreed to provide necessary costumes for Russell’s roles.
- During the season, Russell refused to perform in an opera produced by Duff and arranged to appear at a competing theater for the remainder of the season.
- Duff had advertised Russell as a member of his company at substantial expense and could not obtain a substitute of comparable skill and reputation for the balance of the season.
- Russell asserted a health-based objection to costume requirements (including tights), but also indicated shortly before her refusal that she would perform and wear them if Duff increased her pay.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of equity may issue a negative injunction restraining an entertainer from performing for others during the contract term when the contract lacks an express negative covenant.
2. Whether the performer’s services and the employer’s resulting injury made legal damages inadequate, justifying injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court sustained an injunction barring Russell from performing as a singer or actress for a rival theater during the remaining contract period.
- The court treated Russell’s services as special and not readily replaceable, making damages difficult to measure and insufficient.
- The court enforced the agreement indirectly by restraining outside performance rather than ordering Russell to perform for Duff.
- The court rejected Russell’s proffered justification as insufficient on the record presented, viewing the refusal as a breach associated with a more advantageous competing engagement.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally will not order specific performance of personal services, but may grant a negative injunction preventing performance for others during the contract term.
- A negative injunction may be available even without an express noncompetition clause when exclusivity is fairly implied from the structure of the engagement.
- Injunctive relief is appropriate where the services are unique or extraordinary and the plaintiff cannot readily obtain a substitute, making damages at law inadequate.
- Equity focuses on preventing irreparable injury from the loss of a distinctive performer and the associated business harm (including reliance and promotional investment).

## Conclusion

The court upheld equitable relief restraining a distinctive entertainer from performing for a competitor during the contract term, reasoning that the contract implied exclusivity and that the performer’s uniqueness made damages an inadequate remedy even though the court would not compel affirmative performance.


Duff v. Russell, 60 N.Y. Super. Ct. 80, 14 N.Y.S. 134 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891)